Soros-backed prosecutors convict Fairfax County police officer who followed his training.

The verdict is confusing and almost certainly misguided.

Timothy McCree Johnson was a criminal with a record that included second degree assault of a law enforcement officer, attempted car theft, and involuntary manslaughter. Last year, he stole two pairs of sunglasses valued at about $850 from a store in Tysons Corner, Virginia.

Several police officers pursued Johnson as he ran into a wooded area. One of the officers was Wesley Shifflett.

Johnson tripped and then popped up on both knees. Facing Shifflett, he reached towards his waistband for what the officer thought was a gun.

Shifflett fired two shots at Johnson, one of which killed him. It turned out that Johnson was unarmed. It seems that Johnson was reaching for a pair of sun glasses that was later found under his body. Of course, Shifflett had no way of knowing this.

Fairfax County Commonwealth’s Attorney Steve Descano convened a grand jury that he hoped would criminally charge Shifflett. Descano is a Soros-sponsored prosecutor and a nasty piece of work. Aspiring to higher office, he caters to the left with a soft-on-crime approach. The left loves it; Fairfax County judges, not so much.

I’ve heard it said that prosecutors can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. Descano, though, could not get the grand jury to indict Shifflett.

Undeterred, Descano tried again — an unusual move, I gather. This time, he got his indictment.

At trial, Master Police Officer Gene Bork, who led the training Shifflett received from the Fairfax County Police Department, testified that police officers are trained not to wait until they see a weapon to shoot a suspect who is reaching. He pointed out that one can reach, pull, and fire a handgun in about 0.25 seconds, while it would take an officer an average of 1.7 seconds to see the weapon, react, and unholster his own weapon.

Thus, the moment a suspect reaches, the officer has good reason to believe that his life is in danger.

The trial was marred by several mishaps and errors. The biggest error came when the prosecution played body-camera footage during closing arguments that had not been allowed into evidence. This was clear misconduct by Descano’s crew.

Shifflett’s attorneys contemplated calling for a mistrial, but decided not to. They must have thought the jury was likely to acquit.

If so, they were only half right. After 11 hours of deliberation, the jury acquitted Shifflett on the charge of involuntary manslaughter. However, it convicted him of recklessly handling a firearm.

This verdict seems incoherent — explicable only as a compromise by a jury that felt 11 hours of deliberation were enough.

If Shifflett is innocent of manslaughter, it must be because, as his lawyers argued, he shot Johnson out of a reasonable fear for his life. But if Shifflett shot Johnson because he reasonably feared for his life, how is that a reckless handling of a firearm? I would have thought that trying to save one’s own life is among the least reckless uses of a firearm.

Similarly, the trial testimony that Shifflett acted in accordance with his training, which I assume the jury believed when it acquitted him, undercuts any notion that he was reckless in handling his gun.

Perhaps the elements of the two crimes under Virginia law are such that logical sense can be made of the verdict. However, I’m inclined to agree with Shifflett’s attorney who called the split verdict “confusing.”

In addition, and more importantly, the verdict sends the wrong signal to the police and to the community. Surely, it’s demoralizing to a police force to see a ten-year veteran convicted of a felony for pursuing a criminal and following his training in the pursuit.

The verdict will encourage officers to turn a blind eye to crime — or at least non-violent crime. Officers will be understandably reluctant to risk their lives pursuing criminals when, if they try to protect themselves, they might well end up on trial and maybe in prison.

But turning a blind eye to crime is precisely what George Soros and his band of soft-on-crime prosecutors want from the police. Consider this exchange between the defendant and one of the prosecutors, as recounted by the Washington Post:

“Isn’t it true that you chased Mr. Johnson to the point of confrontation?” Sands [the prosecutor] asked. “You could have stopped at any point and there wouldn’t have been a confrontation.”

“Then I wouldn’t be doing my job,” Shifflett replied, elaborating that his duty is to protect the community.

“You are protecting the community from the theft of sunglasses, correct?” Sands asked.

There you have it. Descano’s office finds the notion that the community has an interest in catching thieves wrongheaded and, indeed, ridiculous. It’s only sunglasses (albeit sunglasses worth nearly $1,000), so let criminals get away with stealing them.

Soros understands that this is the path to lawlessness. But lawlessness is a key element in his “social justice” agenda. Our white supremacist society lacks moral standing to punish thieves, or at least thieves “of color.” It’s police officers — stooges of the racist system — not criminals like Johnson who need to be kept in line.

And yes, Johnson was black. Shifflett is white.

It’s possible that the trial judge, Randy Bellows (who I believe was once a colleague of Bill Otis) will overturn Shifflett’s conviction. During trial, the defense filed a motion to strike the charges against Shifflett. Judge Bellows took the motion under advisement and said he would revisit if Shifflett were found guilty. (I should note here that Bellows is one of the judges who has found serious fault with Descano’s office in the past.)

If he doesn’t grant the defense motion, its my understanding that Judge Bellows will do the sentencing. Shifflett’s conviction carries a maximum penalty of five years. However, it seems likely that Bellows would give a far less harsh sentence, perhaps one that involves no jail time at all.

But in my view, this conviction should not stand.