East Pittsburgh police shoot teen in back (Progress: permit, places)

[Salmonburgher]

Originally Posted by WhoIsStanwix?

What about not trying to apprehend three felony suspects with one officer? That situation seems at least somewhat avoidable.

That's an administrative issue.

When the cop riding solo stopped the suspects, he could only rely on himself.

Yes, ideally, coppers would have back-up. For whatever reason, he did not.

That does not give suspects the right to attempt to defeat an attempted arrest.

In an ideal situation, suspects would obey (legitimate) orders given by coppers.

[PGH423]

Originally Posted by WhoIsStanwix?

What about not trying to apprehend three felony suspects with one officer? That situation seems at least somewhat avoidable.

Good point. Speculation that another individual may flee just doesn't seem iron-clad enough to shoot someone.

[PGH423]

Originally Posted by Salmonburgher

That's an administrative issue.

When the cop riding solo stopped the suspects, he could only rely on himself.

Yes, ideally, coppers would have back-up. For whatever reason, he did not.

That does not give suspects the right to attempt to defeat an attempted arrest.

In an ideal situation, suspects would obey (legitimate) orders given by coppers.

Why not call for backup? The cop never contemplated the possibility that a suspect might flee and just went in alone?
Ideal situation? There'd be no suspects because there'd be no crime. You said ideal

[Tractor Face]

Originally Posted by Salmonburgher

The standard for a reasonable fear in a self defense situation, however, is both a subjective and an objective fear of imminent attack. One can not merely claim a subjective fear of imminent attack. The fear must also be an objectively reasonable fear of an attack that will result in grave bodily injury and or death.

Who decides what's reasonable? I will be the first to admit that I know very little about criminal law. if the guy was in fear for his life however, then he's in fear for his life and I can't see a jury convicting him. I'd bet they would put themselves in his situation and decide accordingly.

I was worried for the guy when I watched it for the first time on the news. I understand some people in here apparently, would have done something else rather than drive through like put the window down and "excuse me, excuse me sir, when you're done kicking my car and screaming at me, and when the others have satisfied their need for violence, would you kindly direct me to Bell Acre Estates?"

[Salmonburgher]

Originally Posted by Tractor Face

Who decides what's reasonable?

The jury.

Originally Posted by Tractor Face

if the guy was in fear for his life however, then he's in fear for his life and I can't see a jury convicting him. I'd bet they would put themselves in his situation and decide accordingly.

In self defense situations, one generally cannot put himself in a dangerous position and then claim the right to use self defense.

I do not know all of the facts of this case. Just commenting on what is likely one of humankind's oldest laws.

On the issue of reasonableness, however, in law there is what is known as the "reasonable man" standard. The court or jury must consider what a reasonable man would have thought and how such reasonable man would have acted in the same situation. In self defense cases, the one claiming the right must show that his fear was both subjectively and objectively reasonable.

To make the point with an extreme case: An NFL linebacker would have great difficulty showing that he had an objectively reasonable fear of a two-foot tall toddler clutching a teddy bear saying to said linebacker that he (toddler) was going to kill the linebacker. Put a real gun in the hands of the toddler and the reasonable analysis changes, as you might expect.

Originally Posted by Tractor Face

I was worried for the guy when I watched it for the first time on the news. I understand some people in here apparently, would have done something else rather than drive through like put the window down and "excuse me, excuse me sir, when you're done kicking my car and screaming at me, and when the others have satisfied their need for violence, would you kindly direct me to Bell Acre Estates?"

There is case law which says that if you find yourself in the middle of a riot you are, in self defense, permitted to step on the gas and drive through such a crowd. The issue, I believe, is whether the driver knowingly put himself in the middle of the crowd? That could work to deprive him of the right to use self defense.

But, of course there is always a "but". Even one who puts himself in a dangerous situation (or who is the original aggressor) can, in some situations, legitimately claim the right to use self defense. But, usually, he would need to show (such as in a fight) that he tried to stop the fight and to retreat but the that opponent with whom he initiated the altercation refused to end the fight and thus the one attacked becomes the aggressor. Not sure how the driver could show something analogous to that situation in the present case.

[Salmonburgher]

Originally Posted by PGH423

Why not call for backup?

That's a good question. But, I do not know whether it is (legally) relevant to the present case. That seems to me to be more of a procedural/protocol/administrative issue.

Originally Posted by PGH423

The cop never contemplated the possibility that a suspect might flee and just went in alone?

That still does not give suspect the right to flee.

What about situations where a lone copper spots a known-to-be-dangerous suspect who has until that moment been elusive and there is no way to get back-up before said suspect gets away?

[gladhands]

Originally Posted by Tractor Face

Who decides what's reasonable? I will be the first to admit that I know very little about criminal law. if the guy was in fear for his life however, then he's in fear for his life and I can't see a jury convicting him. I'd bet they would put themselves in his situation and decide accordingly.

I was worried for the guy when I watched it for the first time on the news. I understand some people in here apparently, would have done something else rather than drive through like put the window down and "excuse me, excuse me sir, when you're done kicking my car and screaming at me, and when the others have satisfied their need for violence, would you kindly direct me to Bell Acre Estates?"

Most of us would have seen the crowd and not driven into them, because we’re not trash human beings.

[Tractor Face]

Originally Posted by Salmonburgher

The jury.



In self defense situations, one generally cannot put himself in a dangerous position and then claim the right to use self defense.

I do not know all of the facts of this case. Just commenting on what is likely one of humankind's oldest laws.

On the issue of reasonableness, however, in law there is what is known as the "reasonable man" standard. The court or jury must consider what a reasonable man would have thought and how such reasonable man would have acted in the same situation. In self defense cases, the one claiming the right must show that his fear was both subjectively and objectively reasonable.

To make the point with an extreme case: An NFL linebacker would have great difficulty showing that he had an objectively reasonable fear of a two-foot tall toddler clutching a teddy bear saying to said linebacker that he (toddler) was going to kill the linebacker. Put a real gun in the hands of the toddler and the reasonable analysis changes, as you might expect.



There is case law which says that if you find yourself in the middle of a riot you are, in self defense, permitted to step on the gas and drive through such a crowd. The issue, I believe, is whether the driver knowingly put himself in the middle of the crowd? That could work to deprive him of the right to use self defense.

But, of course there is always a "but". Even one who puts himself in a dangerous situation (or who is the original aggressor) can, in some situations, legitimately claim the right to use self defense. But, usually, he would need to show (such as in a fight) that he tried to stop the fight and to retreat but the that opponent with whom he initiated the altercation refused to end the fight and thus the one attacked becomes the aggressor. Not sure how the driver could show something analogous to that situation in the present case.

I guess my point is, the defendant is most likely going to say that he was scared to death, if he's permitted to. And the jury is going to hear this. So, despite all the legal arguments, people are people and will vote accordingly.

[Tractor Face]

Originally Posted by gladhands

Most of us would have seen the crowd and not driven into them, because we’re not trash human beings.

I don't know what happened. All that I saw on the video was that this guy found himself in this mass of protesters. I don't know if he purposefully drove his car into the crowd or got lost and found himself facing this crowd. It seems to me if he wanted to cause harm he would have hit the gas hard or done something more once he was in the fray. Do you know?

[gg]

Originally Posted by gladhands

Most of us would have seen the crowd and not driven into them, because we’re not trash human beings.

I don't think we should jump to conclusions on this one. This man left a parking lot and was directed in a direction he might not have wanted and he probably has been to a bunch of ballgames if he was at that one. He is older and probably figured he would just make a u-turn and get on 279 and go down through the Heights, which is a common move if traffic is bad. He turns around and is faced with an angry mob and probably was a bit confused by it. He drives forward and they surround him. He really has no choice at that point, but to move forward because if he makes the highway he is safe.

I think you are just pushing an agenda and not thinking about the old man's situation. I first though he would be much younger, but after getting his age and u-turn ordeal, it is clear he got confused.

I feel bad for him as he was attacked by the aggressive crowd that police seem to do anything they say. This man's life was in danger and he was on his own making one damn mistake. I find that sickening and I think the protesters should PAY and pay in a big way. It is time this city takes a stand on violence and they attacked an old man!!!! That is pretty sick!