East Pittsburgh police shoot teen in back (Braddock: assessment, title)

[Lost_In_Translation]

Originally Posted by gladhands

I mentioned that he was running away to illustrate the point that he was not a threat to the police, not to justify the shooting.

Ah, apologies, some ppl I’ve interacted with seem to believe if you run from the police, you’re guilty and deserve to get shot. Policing is tough, but shooting a non threatening individual is beyond the pale.

[Goinback2011]

Originally Posted by gladhands

It is the state’s responsibility to hold criminals accountable, and the people’s responsibility to hold the state accountable. I am the people, not the state.

Lol. And that's why the shootngs in Pittsburgh will continue.

[Lost_In_Translation]

Originally Posted by Goinback2011

Lol. And that's why the shootngs in Pittsburgh will continue.

Umm...technically gladhands is promoting less shootings. Crime will continue regardless whether police shoot criminals or not.

[Goinback2011]

Hi

Originally Posted by Lost_In_Translation

Umm...technically gladhands is promoting less shootings. Crime will continue regardless whether police shoot criminals or not.

I wasn't suggesting the police should shoot criminals. So long as people refuse to provide information to police about criminal activity and "leave it up to the police " to solve shootings, the carnage by criminals will continue.

If I were a cop, I wouldn't waste time or energy on the problem, let alone get involved in chasing a suspect.

[Enough_Already]

Originally Posted by Lost_In_Translation

Ah, apologies, some ppl I’ve interacted with seem to believe if you run from the police, you’re guilty and deserve to get shot. Policing is tough, but shooting a non threatening individual is beyond the pale.

What everyone is forgetting is this car was stopped because it was involved in a murder a short time ago. How do we know the people running away would not take someone hostage or kill someone who got in their way. The common thread in almost all of these situations is to not be involved with criminal behavior and listen to the police.

[Enough_Already]

Originally Posted by erieguy

Agreed, nobody should be shot it the back...or at all if they’re unarmed.

Curious to hear if they had weapons on them from the shooting they were involved in.

How was the officer to know this criminal was unarmed? They had just fled a murder. How is the officer to know they would not murder someone while trying to get away?

[gladhands]

Originally Posted by Enough_Already

How was the officer to know this criminal was unarmed? They had just fled a murder. How is the officer to know they would not murder someone while trying to get away?

How did the cops know he wouldn't grow up to cure cancer? All of this conjecture is absurd. The kid was fleeing, and did not pose an immediate threat to the officers or anyone else. The police had no right to shoot him.

[Enough_Already]

Originally Posted by gladhands

How did the cops know he wouldn't grow up to cure cancer? All of this conjecture is absurd. The kid was fleeing, and did not pose an immediate threat to the officers or anyone else. The police had no right to shoot him.

How do you know he "did not pose an immediate threat to the officers or anyone else"? This criminal could have taken a hostage to get away or murdered someone while getting away. This criminal could have ran around the block and ambushed the police. This criminal could have returned to try to "help" their fellow criminal. it is only prudent to assume a person who just fled a murder is a threat to the public or the police.

[UKyank]

Agree or disagree with this but the law in PA permits officers to use deadly force when an officer, "believes both that: (i) such force is necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by resistance or escape; and (ii) the person to be arrested has committed or attempted a forcible felony."

I don’t think the officer acted correctly in this situation but it’s also pretty clear from the evidence that the guy shot was involved in the shooting in Braddock the previous hour before as well which makes for a sticky situation.

[WhoIsStanwix?]

Originally Posted by UKyank

Agree or disagree with this but the law in PA permits officers to use deadly force when an officer, "believes both that: (i) such force is necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by resistance or escape; and (ii) the person to be arrested has committed or attempted a forcible felony."

I don’t think the officer acted correctly in this situation but it’s also pretty clear from the evidence that the guy shot was involved in the shooting in Braddock the previous hour before as well which makes for a sticky situation.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to UKyank again."

Thanks for bringing actual facts to the discussion. Anything involving an assessment of right or wrong based on the short video and very small number of facts that have come out about the case is really just speculation.

I am curious, though, if this part of PA law might be ripe for challenge due to violation of the 6th amendment, since criminals are entitled to a right to trial by jury. Maybe there has already been a challenge and this was upheld? Today, I suppose I am an armchair lawyer, as I have literally no legal background and I know others on here do.