East Pittsburgh police shoot teen in back (Rankin: violent crime, living)

[that412]

Originally Posted by safak

So the driver was interviewed and released without charges.

Yeah, this is kind of odd:

The driver of the vehicle, a 20-year-old man, was taken into custody and released after McDonough said officers did not feel they had cause to charge him in the earlier shooting. The other passenger who fled is still being sought. McDonough wouldn't say who was believed to be the gunman in the original shooting but said he was "very confident" the vehicle pulled over was the one involved.

The shooting happened fifteen minutes before this car was stopped by police. Seems weird that he can claim to be very confident of the vehicle's involvement but not be confident enough of the driver of the vehicle's involvement to hold him.

[UKyank]

Originally Posted by WhoIsStanwix?

"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.

I should note that if it ends up that the vehicle stopped was unrelated to the earlier shooting then the officer is rightfully f*cked.

[Lost_In_Translation]

Originally Posted by UKyank

I should note that if it ends up that the vehicle stopped was unrelated to the earlier shooting then the officer is rightfully f*cked.

Yes, exactly, if the cop eyewitnesses the shooting and was chasing the suspect there is grounds for the PA law, but without a proven felony, this is just trial and death sentence by cop...violating all manner of rights. If they got the driver, the suspect wouldn’t have much chance avoiding detection later. Jumpy cop, bad shot!

[dastars]

https://civilrights.findlaw.com/civi...il-rights.html

Key passage: "As long as the officer is performing his job properly, however, there is no violation of a suspect's rights. In fact, police officers are immune from lawsuits for the performance of their jobs unless willful, unreasonable conduct is demonstrated. Mere negligence, the failure to exercise due care, is not enough to create liability.

Immunity therefore means that in the typical police-suspect interaction, the suspect cannot sue the police. Civil rights remedies come into play for willful police conduct that violates an individual's constitutional rights."

So the discussion of 6th Amendment, etc. is pretty moot, barring some truly extraordinary recklessness not seen on the video (i.e. beforehand the officer stating a desire to get a kill on his first day).

Police and prosecutorial immunity is a massive block against real consequences for poor judgment, or even outright malice, as long as a fig leaf of justification can be held up. See e.g. Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, etc...

[szug-bot]

maybe a dumb question here, but....why not shoot for the legs?

I believe a former cop once answered this to me, saying that their training IS to shoot at the mid-section, and that shooting at the legs is just for fictional movies.

[Lost_In_Translation]

Originally Posted by szug-bot

maybe a dumb question here, but....why not shoot for the legs?

I believe a former cop once answered this to me, saying that their training IS to shoot at the mid-section, and that shooting at the legs is just for fictional movies.

He could have been aiming for the legs or even just trying a warning shot and the adrenaline affected his aim, in any case discharging his firearm resulted in the death of someone not directly threatening him or anyone at the time and so rightfully he should face consequences.

[gg]

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.

The cops in this case are okay because there was a shooting already and they were in pursuit. It is sad, but lets face it these guys already were shooting others prior. I know some want to make this anti-cop, but a shooting happened, so all bets are off after that. The cops didn't start all of this, the people running away did.

Sorry, but the law is clear. You commit a deadly crime, you might have to pay with your life. Cops still have to do their job. These are big time criminals. Well done, police.

[gg]

Originally Posted by UKyank

I should note that if it ends up that the vehicle stopped was unrelated to the earlier shooting then the officer is rightfully f*cked.

I sort of agree with this, but lets face it we need to curb crime in our city, so people feel safe enough to take it back from the bad guys. It is slowly happening through wonderful gentrification, but these kind of things slow things down.

[gg]

Originally Posted by Lost_In_Translation

He could have been aiming for the legs or even just trying a warning shot and the adrenaline affected his aim, in any case discharging his firearm resulted in the death of someone not directly threatening him or anyone at the time and so rightfully he should face consequences.

If someone is fleeing and you don't know if they are armed, how do you know if they aren't a threat? Oh wait, you are chilling in your living room being an arm chair QB. Believe me in real life all this is very different.

[DonaldJTrump]

if they had guns in the car, then they were evil gun owners, most likely illegally obtained, on their way to commit mass murder shootings at schools, therefore good shoot by the police in stopping terrorists