East Pittsburgh police shoot teen in back (employment, to live)

[Lost_In_Translation]

Originally Posted by gg

Sorry, but once you are a gunman that just tried to kill someone, you sort of give up quite a bit of rights.

...and that’s where we differ...either we’re treating everyone the same or we’re just series of private tribes protecting our own at the expense of others. “Who cares about the xxxxx, they’ll all kill each other anyway, I’d never live next to xxxxx, xxxxxx deserves it, they don’t respect the police” No empathy for the xxxxx’s. I mean they did something atrocious, they’re not even human anymore...

[szug-bot]

Originally Posted by Lost_In_Translation

...we’re just series of private tribes protecting our own at the expense of others. “Who cares about the xxxxx, they’ll all kill each other anyway....

that sounds like it can be the predominant philosophy of the deceased. so who is better to judge? the ones with the guns, reenacting 1920s chicago?

[PGH423]

Originally Posted by gg

I just noticed the officer involved is a part-time officer. He is on unpaid leave. Part-time officers make very little money. He might have been making like $10-15 an hour.

Guess I get protesting all over the city instead of that tiny little place of 2,000 people. I feel bad for the city of Pittsburgh that will have to endure all of this for a very long time and they weren't involved. Guess it is collateral damage.

Why does a suburb have the city in its name? It seems like that never should have happened.

[Lost_In_Translation]

Originally Posted by PGH423

Why does a suburb have the city in its name? It seems like that never should have happened.

I’m been through plenty of cities with smaller suburbs that take the bigger cities name...East St Louis, West Memphis, Lauderdale by the Sea...I’m sure there are many more. West Memphis and East St Louis are in adjacent states, but there are other historical reasons I’m sure for having similarly named adjacent areas.

[Lost_In_Translation]

Homicide charges filed against police officer in Antwon Rose shooting death | Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

East Pittsburgh officer charged with criminal homocide in death of Antwon Rose II

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by Lost_In_Translation

Homicide charges filed against police officer in Antwon Rose shooting death | Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

East Pittsburgh officer charged with criminal homocide in death of Antwon Rose II

Unless Rose is innocent in the shooting of the 22yo it’s a shame the cop will have to go through being charged, even though he’ll win in Court.

[Salmonburgher]

This will be interesting (from a legal perspective).

Given that (1) the car in which Anton was riding was stopped 13 minutes after a drive-by (earlier) shooting, and (2) I assume the car fit a description of the drive-by car and (3) had bullet holes in it, and that (4) another person also fled from the car and was later arrested and is charged with attempted homicide and other charges stemming from the (earlier) shooting, it would seem that the officer held a reasonable belief that Antwon posed a threat to kill or harm others.

The relevant portions of the applicable PA Statute:

(1) A peace officer... is justified in using deadly force only when he believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to ... other persons

or when he believes both that:

(i) such force is necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by ... escape; and

(ii) the person to be arrested has committed or attempted a forcible felony or is attempting to escape and possesses a deadly weapon...


I wonder how the court will rule with respect to the fact that Anton did not apparently possess a deadly weapon. Will the officer be permitted to claim (successfully) that he held a reasonable belief (though apparently mistaken) that Anton possessed a deadly weapon, or is the officer required to know for certain that Anton possessed a deadly weapon before using deadly force to stop Anton from fleeing.

The statute appears to stipulate that the officer need only believe that the fleeing suspect possesses a weapon.

Also, if Anton is deemed to have committed a forcible felony, it would seem that the officer was justified (per the statute) in using deadly force to stop Anton. Now I see this: Sources also say gun residue was found on Rose’s hand.

I think, just reading the statute, that the officer was likely justified in using deadly force under either of the permissions (1) and (i) & (ii). I guess it will depend largely on how the court has ruled on the issue of belief (whether a particular standard applies to determining whether such belief is reasonable).

P.S. Sorry about the red and blue and bold. I am severely dyslexic and using colors and bold font help me to read and make some order of my text.

[Lost_In_Translation]

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I know where certain people on this forum stand on the issue and I know where I stand. We’ll see what the PA court system determines. Maybe we’ll get a break next week from the protests.

[jea6321]

Originally Posted by erieguy

Unless Rose is innocent in the shooting of the 22yo it’s a shame the cop will have to go through being charged, even though he’ll win in Court.

kind of interesting logic you are using. I look at it more as though, "its a shame Antwon had to die if he proves to be innocent"

being charged and getting due process is what is supposed to happen. Regardless if the officer gets off or is convicted, he is still alive. Looking at it the other way sure does raise some concerns.

[WhoIsStanwix?]

Originally Posted by Salmonburgher

This will be interesting (from a legal perspective).

Given that (1) the car in which Anton was riding was stopped 13 minutes after a drive-by (earlier) shooting, and (2) I assume the car fit a description of the drive-by car and (3) had bullet holes in it, and that (4) another person also fled from the car and was later arrested and is charged with attempted homicide and other charges stemming from the (earlier) shooting, it would seem that the officer held a reasonable belief that Antwon posed a threat to kill or harm others.

The relevant portions of the applicable PA Statute:

(1) A peace officer... is justified in using deadly force only when he believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to ... other persons

or when he believes both that:

(i) such force is necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by ... escape; and

(ii) the person to be arrested has committed or attempted a forcible felony or is attempting to escape and possesses a deadly weapon...


I wonder how the court will rule with respect to the fact that Anton did not apparently possess a deadly weapon. Will the officer be permitted to claim (successfully) that he held a reasonable belief (though apparently mistaken) that Anton possessed a deadly weapon, or is the officer required to know for certain that Anton possessed a deadly weapon before using deadly force to stop Anton from fleeing.

The statute appears to stipulate that the officer need only believe that the fleeing suspect possesses a weapon.

Also, if Anton is deemed to have committed a forcible felony, it would seem that the officer was justified (per the statute) in using deadly force to stop Anton.

I think, just reading the statute, that the officer was likely justified in using deadly force under either of the permissions (1) and (i) & (ii). I guess it will depend largely on how the court has ruled on the issue of belief (whether a particular standard applies to determining whether such belief is reasonable).

I think this is spot on and will be the most important piece of the police officer's defense. I agree that the officer did not afford Antwon due process, however it is possible that Antwon waived his right to due process under the law by attempting to escape. The police officer will have to be held accountable to the law as written.

That said, if the law is found to be unconstitutional, because it infringes upon the right of due process, can the officer be held accountable for the fact that while he may have followed the law as written at the time of his actions, the law may not ultimately be considered valid? I am not a constitutional law expert so I have no clue. In fact, I am not a law expert at all. It is a scary thought that someone might be held accountable to a standard that didn't exist at the time, though.

That said, it seems many are really making this into an emotional argument on one side or another, and rightly so as the right to life, liberty, and safety are fundamental to a functioning American society. The outrage of this incident would not be nearly as big if all of the preceding incidents in the past several years had not occurred, many of which were egregious and not only did not result in finding the police officers responsible, indeed they gave the appearance of not even considering whether to allow a jury of peers determine whether the officers were guilty of crimes to begin with.