Ramarley Graham

Judge Throws Out Indictment Against Cop Who Killed Ramarley Graham Because Grand Jury Wasn't Told What Other Cops Told Him; Should They Be Indicted Too, Then?

Prosecutor will seek a new indictment


shot by cop
family photo

Officer Richard Haste of the NYPD was indicted by a grand jury last year for manslaughter in relation to his killing of Ramarley Graham while pursuing the teenager over an alleged narcotics purchase. Graham ran into his grandmother's apartment and was shot in the bathroom while allegedly flushing a dime bag of marijuana down the toilet. Graham was unarmed during the entire pursuit.

The judge has now tossed that indictment because he believed the prosecutor should've informed the grand jury about what other cops told Haste about Graham (that they believed him to be armed). Those cops, of course, were wrong. They've also not been charged in connection with being wrong about something apparently being used to justify the shooting. The prosecutor intends to return to a grand jury to secure a new indictment, though there's no report of indictments extending to other officers who may have aggravated the situation with wrong information.

NEXT: John Stossel on Why America Needs More Free-Range Kids

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Shot in the bathroom? That’s gotta hurt.

  2. What difference, at this point, does it make?

  3. Does this defense work for little people or just cops?

    1. Being one of the King’s Men has privileges.

    2. Definitely not if the person shot was a cop. But I wonder if it would work if, say, someone shot a person who came into his house after being warned by someone else that a person with a gun and ill intentions was on their way. Probably not, but I suppose it might depend on the state’s self defense laws.

      1. Recent story in the local news.

        Former roommates of a mother with two small children came to her house looking for their missing dog. She tells them to leave. They start pounding on the door and throwing rocks at the windows. She gets her pellet gun out and again tells them to leave. They threaten to break the door down as they continue to throw rocks. She fires two pellets at them.
        They get a ride to the hospital by the cops, while the mom goes to jail for assault.

        Her real crime was trying to handle things herself instead of summoning the king’s men.

        1. She would have been better off legally if they had just broken into the house, then castle doctrine would have applied, no?

          1. You can’t fend off an intruder with a pellet gun. Come on.

        2. I guess that’s why they say that if you are going to shoot someone, make sure you kill them.

      2. Oh, and the dog wasn’t there.

        1. So – happy ending!

        2. And even if it was it would have been shot.

  4. Sure, judges always toss grand jury indictments for non-cops because the prosecutor might have omitted some information.

    No. Double. Standard.

  5. Judge: “Fuck you, that’s why”

  6. ” The judge has now tossed that indictment because he believed the prosecutor should’ve informed the grand jury about what other cops told Haste about Graham (that they believed him to be armed). ”

    WTF? They could say ANYTHING, be completely wrong, and use that to justify kills.

    1. Examples: “Stop resisting,” “He made a furtive movement,” “He was coming right at me,” etc.

      1. “He was holding a pop tart shaped like a gun.”

        1. “He had on a t-shirt with a picture of an AR….”

  7. The toilet looked loaded.

      1. Crap, they left out the best bit:

        Nina: [On the way to the hospital, regarding the arrow she has accidentally shot into Phil’s right buttock] What will you tell the doctor?
        Phil Blackwood: That I shot myself.
        Nina: With a bow and arrow?
        Phil Blackwood: I didn’t know it was loaded!

  8. Holy Fuck my balls are ringing after reading this one.

  9. Not that it’s even in the same ball park, but while we’re in a police-loving mood I thought I’d share:

    On the way to work one lane of the freeway was closed for construction, causing a 2 mile backup of traffic. Rather than helping the flow of traffic, the local PD saw it as an opportunity to stakeout the safest, most level, gravel-covered cross-over to the frontage road. This is the same cross-over they direct us to use when the road floods every 2-3 years and we have to exit the highway at this point. I saw at least 5 police cars staking out this cross-over and nabbing as many people as they could for tickets. Revenue and control are the most important factors here. I hope there weren’t any murders or real crimes in the other 28 sq mi that were left unpatrolled while they made their big ticket score.

    1. I’m glad I live in a state where revenue from tickets and stolen property go to the state capital, not the local jurisdictions. It takes away some perverse incentives.

    2. Next time, call the Chief of Police and ask him that question. Even better, call your local news station with a tip and let them ask the Chief.

  10. Why isn’t the name of the judge and court who made this ruling specified in this report? Then readers would know who is responsible as they decide for themselves if justice has actually been served.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.