East Pittsburgh police shoot teen in back (Oklahoma: teach, charges)

[gladhands]

Originally Posted by Lost_In_Translation

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.

Miami Beach, Cleveland Heights, East Chicago

[Salmonburgher]

Originally Posted by WhoIsStanwix?

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.

No.

The remedy would be to repeal or amend the law. The officer would not even be a party to such a "dispute".

[WhoIsStanwix?]

Originally Posted by Salmonburgher

No.

The remedy would be to repeal or amend the law. The officer would not even be a party to such a "dispute".

In that case, hopefully there can be a constructive debate over the law as written. If the officer is found not guilty, there will be more rage, but the rage will potentially be misdirected at the officer rather than the law itself, which can be changed if found inadequate.

[Icy Tea]

There we go, finally. It looks like 4 problems will be off the streets. The bad cop, the shooter Zaijuan Hester, his accomplice Antwon( although his being put in prison would have been preferable) , and very likely the guy they shot if he didn't have a license and carry permit for the firearm he used. Idiot+Idiot+Idiot+Idiot= Tragedy.
Now stop protesting and making Pittsburgh look like a city of Neanderthals.

[Twenty Years in the Burgh]

Originally Posted by gladhands

Miami Beach, Cleveland Heights, East Chicago

Don't forget about East Cleveland--the first suburb of Cleveland (it abuts Cleveland Heights). East Cleveland has similar crime stats and neighborhood environs to East Pittsburgh.

[gg]

Originally Posted by Lost_In_Translation

...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...

Yeah we are just too far apart. I want people protected from those that are shooting others and posses a gun. This was 13 minutes after that 22 year old was gunned down in cold blood and you just want to let everyone go. I just don't see that as an option.

I am not sure about shooting someone three times however. I would imagine the first shot didn't take him down and with a semi-automatic you can squeeze off three shots in no time.

Regardless of all of this, Pittsburgh is just going to have to live with this for a very long time. So far we are much better than other cities that riot and burn things to the ground, so that is a good thing.

[dastars]

Originally Posted by Salmonburgher

This will be interesting (from a legal perspective).

[snipped PA citation with frequent references to the officer's belief]

From CBSNews:

Rosfeld first told investigators that Rose "turned his hand toward" Rosfeld, who "saw something dark that he perceived as a gun," detectives wrote in the complaint. But when asked to repeat his version of events, Rosfeld's story changed, detectives wrote.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/antwon-...ay-2018-06-27/

So fundamentally that will be the question; was the officer's belief reasonable, at the moment of the incident? Knowing what we know now about the driver, the weapons, etc. it's easy to hindsight that it was. However, it's clear that the investigators/DA did not buy that in that moment the officer had a reasonable belief that lethal force was required.

So yeah, definitely going to be an interesting case as it will come down to subjective understanding. That said, juries almost always side with police when it comes to trustworthiness, so in my view, the key will be how much of the officer's prior employment and dismissal will be admissible. If a pattern of abusive/reckless/malicious conduct can be proven, that would cast serious doubt on the reasonableness of his use of force. If it's limited to the events of that night, given similar cases, it's likely he won't be convicted.

[stremba]

Originally Posted by WhoIsStanwix?

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.

I am not an expert either, but holding the cop accountable after the fact would seem to be akin to an ex post facto law, which is certainly unconstitutional. If you (or anyone else) is unaware of what that means, an ex post facto law would mean a law that allows someone to be punished for violation of that law that occurred before the law was passed. For instance, if the state legislature decided to change the PA law that governs the use of force by police and pass a new law that says that police may not use deadly force in any case where a suspect is fleeing, that law could not be used to punish the officer in this case. It would seem to me that a court ruling overturning the law in place at the time of the shooting could not be used to justify a prosecution, but like I said, I am not an expert on the matter.

[stremba]

Originally Posted by dastars

From CBSNews: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/antwon-...ay-2018-06-27/

So fundamentally that will be the question; was the officer's belief reasonable, at the moment of the incident? Knowing what we know now about the driver, the weapons, etc. it's easy to hindsight that it was. However, it's clear that the investigators/DA did not buy that in that moment the officer had a reasonable belief that lethal force was required.

So yeah, definitely going to be an interesting case as it will come down to subjective understanding. That said, juries almost always side with police when it comes to trustworthiness, so in my view, the key will be how much of the officer's prior employment and dismissal will be admissible. If a pattern of abusive/reckless/malicious conduct can be proven, that would cast serious doubt on the reasonableness of his use of force. If it's limited to the events of that night, given similar cases, it's likely he won't be convicted.

Or... might not the political pressure arising from large numbers of protestors blocking traffic during rush hour in the city might have something to do with the DA bringing charges? Additionally, you have the idea backwards. It is not sufficient for the prosecution to cast doubt upon the actions of the officer. The prosecution would have to prove beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt that the actions of the officer were illegal. If there is ANY reasonable doubt about the actions of the officer, then acquittal is the proper verdict, not conviction.

[dastars]

Originally Posted by stremba

Or... might not the political pressure arising from large numbers of protestors blocking traffic during rush hour in the city might have something to do with the DA bringing charges?

Possibly, but looking at other similar shooting cases, charges brought due to political pressure took much longer than a week (e.g. the Tamir Rice non-indictment was a year later).

Additionally, you have the idea backwards. It is not sufficient for the prosecution to cast doubt upon the actions of the officer. The prosecution would have to prove beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt that the actions of the officer were illegal. If there is ANY reasonable doubt about the actions of the officer, then acquittal is the proper verdict, not conviction.

It's sufficient to bring charges. In that portion of the post, I wasn't speaking toward the final verdict, which obviously lies with the jury and not the DA. I should've been clearer.