The author is a retired Detroit Police investigator and a one-time defendant in a police-Involved shooting that resulted in a death. He was subsequently acquitted in a trial in Detroit Recorder's Court.
By Ira Todd
As a retired Detroit Police Investigator with over four decades of experience investigating violent crime, and as someone who once stood trial for second-degree murder after acting to save my partner’s life and my own, I understand, in the most personal and painful way, the emotional, legal, and moral weight of a split-second decision made under duress.
Ira Todd
In 1993, during a gang enforcement operation in Southwest Detroit, I believed my partner had just been shot. I returned fire in what I perceived to be an ambush, an incident sparked when a third party inserted himself into our investigation.
Prosecutors charged my partner and I with murder. The headlines were deafening. Public judgment swift. But once the jury heard the full story, understood the peril we faced, and saw the situation in context, they acquitted us.
The scars of that ordeal stayed with me, not out of guilt, but from being publicly vilified before the facts were even understood. Officers carry the burden not just of their actions, but of how those actions are perceived. In today’s climate, I’m not certain I’d want a public jury deciding my fate. But I am certain that full transparency and due process are necessary in every case where a life is lost at the hands of police.
Supported a Trial
That’s why I publicly supported the decision to bring former Grand Rapids police officer Christopher Schurr to trial for the killing of Patrick Lyoya, a motorist he pulled over during a traffic stop on April 4, 2022.
Lyoya got out of the car and eventually ran. Schurr chased him. The two struggled on the ground and Schurr shot him in the back of the head. The officer was White. The motorist was Black. The event occurred in a city already strained by distrust between law enforcement and the community. The killing was captured on video, and the surrounding facts were unclear. That is precisely the kind of case where a trial isn’t just appropriate, it’s essential.
Last Thursday morning, a mistrial was declared after the jurors said they were hopelessly deadlocked. I'm not surprised. But before I explain why, let me continue.
Some criticized my stance, including some in law enforcement, for supporting a trial of a police officer. But I didn't see it as disloyalty but rather as due process, which is the very heart of our justice system. Trials don’t weaken police legitimacy, they reinforce it. Public trust is eroded not when officers are held accountable, but when accountability is absent.
Here are the uncontested facts:
► On April 4, 2022, Officer Schurr initiated a traffic stop involving Patrick Lyoya, a Congolese refugee, saying the license plate did not belong on the car.
►Lyoya exited the vehicle and appeared disoriented. He did not comply with verbal commands.
►A physical altercation ensued.
► Schurr deployed his Taser, which Lyoya either grabbed or deflected.
► After approximately 90 seconds of struggle, Schurr drew his firearm and shot Lyoya in the back of the head.
According to prosecutors, Lyoya never had full control of the Taser. According to Schurr, he feared it would be used against him. That distinction is at the heart of the legal question.
Deadly Force
Under Michigan law, deadly force is justified if an officer has a reasonable and honest belief that their life is in imminent danger. The trial was necessary to determine whether that standard was met. Was this a reasonable fear under the circumstances, or an excessive, criminal overreaction?
This is precisely what a trial is for.
As someone who has endured that crucible, I can tell you: trials are grueling. But they are the only venue where fear can be measured against fact, and training evaluated against outcome. That’s not persecution, it’s the rule of law in action.
The video was jarring. A man face-down. A gun drawn. A fatal shot. For many in the community, especially those who have witnessed similar tragedies, it resembled an execution. But context matters. The physical struggle. The malfunction or resistance to the Taser. The split-second judgment. None of it automatically exonerates the officer. But it all demands examination.
After learning that there was a hung jury in the trial of former Grand Rapids officer Christopher Schurr I wasn’t surprised. The decision was a sobering reminder of the complexities in our justice system, especially in cases involving police use of force. The jury, made up of ordinary citizens, listened to all the evidence, examined the facts, and deliberated for days. In the end, they could not come to a unanimous decision, and that is a part of our legal process.
A hung jury is not a victory or a loss for either side. It is a signal that, despite the gravity of the evidence and the emotion surrounding the case, the jurors were genuinely divided. That division reflects the larger tensions in our society, about policing, race, accountability, and justice.
Not All Killings Are Criminal
We must be clear: not all killings by police are criminal. But not all are justified either. Officers are trained to assess threat, to de-escalate, to use force proportionally, and to retreat if safe. Whether those principles were followed here was a question for the court, not for the media, and not for public opinion alone.
When a white officer kills a Black man in America, history walks into the courtroom with them. Communities see patterns. Officers see accusations. But justice must be rooted not in identity, but in evidence and standards.
To my fellow officers: a trial is not an indictment of all police. It’s a reaffirmation that the badge stands for justice, not exemption. If a shooting is lawful, let the facts show it. If not, we must own that too. That’s how trust is built.
The jury has spoken. The value of this trial endures. It reminds us that every life lost in an encounter with law enforcement deserves a full and fair examination, not just for justice, but for the preservation of public trust.
This was never about condemning Officer Schurr personally. It was about ensuring that no death, especially one so public, so charged, and so painful, goes unquestioned.
That is not a threat to law enforcement. It is the cornerstone of its legitimacy.
Just one man’s opinion.
Also see videocast/podcast:
