Board 8 > Protesting in Pittsburgh over Black Teen shot by Cop

(+) Yeah! (+)

Protests have been held in Pittsburgh recently over the shooting of Antwon Rose by an East Pittsburgh police officer.

Antwon Rose was shot by a police officer as he fled the scene of a stop for a probable felony.

A man was shot in the abdomen and killed in a drive by shooting. The man shot returned fire clipping the care a few times.

Police found the car shortly after with bullet holes in it and pulled it over. It had 3 men inside of it. As the driver was being arrested, the two others fled. The cop shot at and killed Antwon Rose who was 17. Hitting him 3 times in the back. Rose had a gun clip on him but no gun. He had gun residue on his hands that was likely to have been from the gun used for the drive by shooting earlier.

Crowds have been protesting in Pittsburgh for days now. Mostly peaceful. However, yesterday as crowds were blocking some streets, a car ended up striking a few people and fled off as protesters attacked the car.

Thoughts on the situation?
---

Shooting a fleeing suspect is murder
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Shooting a fleeing suspect is murder

Is shooting a fleeing suspect suspected of being armed and deadly after highly corrobating evidence of being involved in the shooting of someone on the street "murder"? What if that teen had a gun and could have shot someone else and he hadn't stopped him?

Would he have been held accountable for that death if failed to prevent?
---

Corrik posted...

Is shooting a fleeing suspect suspected of being armed and deadly after highly corrobating evidence of being involved in the shooting of someone on the street "murder"?

Yes, by definition.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik posted...

Is shooting a fleeing suspect suspected of being armed and deadly after highly corrobating evidence of being involved in the shooting of someone on the street "murder"?

Yes, by definition.

Is it?

Murder is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse, especially the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought
---

Correct. There is no justification or valid excuse to shoot a man in the scenario you described in the opening post.

If your facts are accurate, thats murder.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Correct. There is no justification or valid excuse to shoot a man in the scenario you described in the opening post.

If your facts are accurate, thats murder.

You got some interesting sets of ideas on justification and valid excuse, I suppose.
---

Me and all those people protesting, yeah
---

I saw something that said that the officer who killed the kid was pretty new, and had recently been security who had in some way worked for Rose's father, but got fired?

That sounds fake, but is there any truth to that situation?
---

Almost like you shouldn't do drive by shootings. But that's besides the point i guess.
---

hockeydude15 posted...

Almost like you shouldn't do drive by shootings. But that's besides the point i guess.

Or any shootings, unless your life or the life of another is in immediate danger.
---

hockeydude15 posted...

Almost like you shouldn't do drive by shootings. But that's besides the point i guess.

Jakyl25 posted...

Shooting a fleeing suspect is murder

This.
---

You can't just murder people you suspect of a crime. That's the whole point of the justice system

Next
---

There are distinct protocols that are supposed to be followed in cases of fleeing suspects.

Openly shooting suspects is not part of that protocol. If he was armed and shooting people then it's justified but if the thought is "he might have a weapon" the protocol is not to kill them
---

I mean yeah you can't shoot people just because they're running away from you

HanOfTheNekos posted...

I saw something that said that the officer who killed the kid was pretty new, and had recently been security who had in some way worked for Rose's father, but got fired?

That sounds fake, but is there any truth to that situation?

He was 3 weeks onto the job I think. He worked for the University of Pittsburgh for 6 years from 2012-2018 and was fired WITH CAUSE.
---

Interestingly enough, this in a huge bastion of democrats area. So, he may be staked for political reasoning. Be interesting to see how it shakes out.
---

Fleeing felon rule
From Wikipedia

At common law, the fleeing felon rule permits the use of force, including deadly force, against an individual who is suspected of a felony and is in clear flight. According to David Caplan "Immediate stopping of the fleeing felon, whether actually or presumably dangerous, was deemed absolutely necessary for the security of the people in a free state, and for maintaining the "public security." ... " Indeed, it has been said that the social policy of the common law in this matter was not only to threaten dangerous felons and hence deter them, but was also to induce them to "surrender peaceably" if they dared commit inherently dangerous felonies, rather than allow them to "escape trial for their crimes." [1]

Goes on to say:

U.S. law

Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited in 1985 to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1. The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."[2]

A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead...however...Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.

Justice Byron White, Tennessee v. Garner[3]
Fleeing felons may be followed into places not open to the public without a warrant if the officer is in "hot pursuit[4]." Deadly force that is executed by a co-defendant against an accomplice is not justified by the fleeing felon rule.

Seems like this was very clearly a mistake by the officer. If he was actually just sworn in a matter of hours before the incident I wonder how much his inexperience contributed.
---

I guess the only issue I have with that though is it basically comes down the the fact that there is literally no reason not to run from police if you have just committed a grave crime. Just drop your weapon and book it and hope for the best, since you just likely committed murder or something.
---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Fleeing felon rule
From Wikipedia

At common law, the fleeing felon rule permits the use of force, including deadly force, against an individual who is suspected of a felony and is in clear flight. According to David Caplan "Immediate stopping of the fleeing felon, whether actually or presumably dangerous, was deemed absolutely necessary for the security of the people in a free state, and for maintaining the "public security." ... " Indeed, it has been said that the social policy of the common law in this matter was not only to threaten dangerous felons and hence deter them, but was also to induce them to "surrender peaceably" if they dared commit inherently dangerous felonies, rather than allow them to "escape trial for their crimes." [1]

Goes on to say:

U.S. law

Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited in 1985 to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1. The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."[2]

A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead...however...Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.

Justice Byron White, Tennessee v. Garner[3]
Fleeing felons may be followed into places not open to the public without a warrant if the officer is in "hot pursuit[4]." Deadly force that is executed by a co-defendant against an accomplice is not justified by the fleeing felon rule.

Seems like this was very clearly a mistake by the officer. If he was actually just sworn in a matter of hours before the incident I wonder how much his inexperience contributed.

I think you showed clearly how this was not a case of murder with actual law citations.
---

Based on Corrik's argument, the suspect was allegedly armed and dangerous, which justifies the shooting.

Where I find fault is not holding the police accountable for making such fatal judgments about whether a suspect is armed and dangerous. It seems very common for police to shoot first and claim endangerment later, and they get away with it.
---

Inviso posted...

Based on Corrik's argument, the suspect was allegedly armed and dangerous, which justifies the shooting.

Where I find fault is not holding the police accountable for making such fatal judgments about whether a suspect is armed and dangerous. It seems very common for police to shoot first and claim endangerment later, and they get away with it.

He was fleeing a felony stop in which a person was gunned down from that car. I don't think that is too huge of a leap to think the person is armed while running from the police. imo.
---

Inviso posted...

Based on Corrik's argument, the suspect was allegedly armed and dangerous, which justifies the shooting.

If the danger is not an imminent threat, this is 100% wrong.
---

If an armed citizen sees the officer shooting at an unarmed man fleeing from him, with no other information, is the citizen allowed to shoot at the officer? If not, why?
---

Corrik posted...

He was fleeing a felony stop in which a person was gunned down from that car. I don't think that is too huge of a leap to think the person is armed while running from the police. imo.

But apparently it was too large of a leap in reality.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

If an armed citizen sees the officer shooting at an unarmed man fleeing from him, with no other information, is the citizen allowed to shoot at the officer? If not, why?

No and this post is strongly inflammatory towards police. Your bias is strongly shining through right now.
---

Corrik posted...

Your bias is strongly shining through right now.

so is your bias in favor of the police.
---

I mean, yeah? I didnt know I was supposed to hide my bias. You arent hiding yours.
---

Also that was a serious question.
---

I don't have a bias towards cops. I have a bias toward properly assessing a situation.
---

And they assessed it improperly, if your facts are true
---

Corrik posted...

I have a bias toward properly assessing a situation.

spoilers: your "proper assessment of the situation" is also biased. any person's assessment is colored by bias.
---

Yeah I don't know about this one. Being involved in violent crimes and receiving a violent end is not deserved but becomes a likely result.
---

I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that someone who has literally just committed murder and is actively running from law enforcement is armed and dangerous, and to then act accordingly.

Unwarranted police violence sucks but this case isn't that, from my perspective. (Assuming Corrik's information accurately/fairly represents the situation)
---

pyresword posted...

I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that someone who has literally just committed murder

that wasn't confirmed at the time, though. he was suspected of having committed the murder.
---

My understanding is that a confirmed drive-by murder was reported, and that the stopped car was confirmed to be the same car--presumably by color/model and also by the presence of bullet holes in the car.

That sounds pretty confirmed to me, though correct me if I'm wrong on any statement of fact.
---

The shooting wasn't necessary, but it's pretty hard to get up in arms about a drive-by suspect, in a car with bullet holes in it, running from the cops, who ditched a gun on the floor of the car, had an empty clip on him and gun residue on his hands, getting wrongfully shot by the cops.

If you don't want to get killed by cops don't participate in a murder. We literally have people protesting and crying over a murderer.
---

Drive by happens where man is shot and bullets were exchanged by both parties. Car is reported to police. Police find car matching description with bulletholes in it. Police pull over car. Multiple men. As trying to arrest one, the others run. One is shot while fleeing. We do not have much more than that. There is an apparent very brief video that exists of the shooting.
---

HotDogButts posted...

The shooting wasn't necessary, but it's pretty hard to get up in arms about a drive-by suspect, in a car with bullet holes in it, running from the cops, who ditched a gun on the floor of the car, had an empty clip on him and gun residue on his hands, getting wrongfully shot by the cops.

If you don't want to get killed by cops don't participate in a murder. We literally have people protesting and crying over a murderer.

---

Corrik posted...

He was fleeing a felony stop in which a person was gunned down from that car. I don't think that is too huge of a leap to think the person is armed while running from the police. imo.

This is where im not sure.

Im having trouble finding key information, such as how far along into the traffic stop they were at the time.

They say the driver was being cuffed at the time, does this mean as soon as the car stopped the passengers ran? Or the cop came up to the car like a normal traffic stop and informed them they were being arrested? What phase of the proceedings exactly were they in? It would be great if they had the body cams for this.

But depending on the answers to those questions it could have either (a) been very clear the subject was unnamed or (b) been very ambiguous if the suspect was armed or not.

But even if (b) and the suspect still had a gun on his person it is not guaranteed that he was a clear and present threat at the moment. And so lethal force is not necessity justified.

.

.

pyresword posted...

My understanding is that a confirmed drive-by murder was reported, and that the stopped car was confirmed to be the same car--presumably by color/model and also by the presence of bullet holes in the car.

That sounds pretty confirmed to me, though correct me if I'm wrong on any statement of fact.

Drive by shooting, not murder. It is my understanding that the person they shot at survived the shooting.
---

HotDogButts posted...

The shooting wasn't necessary, but it's pretty hard to get up in arms about a drive-by suspect, in a car with bullet holes in it, running from the cops, who ditched a gun on the floor of the car, had an empty clip on him and gun residue on his hands, getting wrongfully shot by the cops.

Im not necessarily disagreeing with the spirit of this post. Ive seen things like classmates saying "thats not the kind of guy he was" even though that was literally the kind of guy he was. He was a presumably willing participant in a drive by shooting. If yhe facts are accurate then he had residue on his hands proving he fired a gun in the shooting. I won't be losing any sleep over him personally.

BUT.

But if the law states that there needs to be a clear threat to justify lethal force against a fleeing suspect? Well based on what we currently know im not sure that's been established.

Naturally, emerging evidence could push this case in either direction still.
---

HotDogButts posted...

If you don't want to get killed by cops don't participate in a murder. We literally have people protesting and crying over a murderer.

If you dont fight for civil rights for even the worst people, then you dont really believe in those rights.
---

I do agree (I think), in that I don't think we have enough information to accurately assess whether or not this was justified.
---

pyresword posted...

I do agree (I think), in that I don't think we have enough information to accurately assess whether or not this was justified.

In my apparently controversial opinion, if you arent holding a weapon, you arent enough of an immediate threat to deserve death.
---

"Pennsylvania law allows officers to use deadly force against a fleeing suspect in only a handful of circumstances. It's permitted if the suspect poses a threat of immediate danger, has used or threatened lethal violence previously or possesses a lethal weapon."
---

Heres the thing the people defending this dont understand:

If this qualifies as a good shoot, then where is the line? Whats to stop cops from shooting literally any suspect they think committed violent crime?

When and why do you think suspected violent criminals should lose their 5th Amendment Rights? Is there any way for them to get them back?
---

Corrik posted...

"Pennsylvania law allows officers to use deadly force against a fleeing suspect in only a handful of circumstances. It's permitted if the suspect poses a threat of immediate danger, has used or threatened lethal violence previously or possesses a lethal weapon."

This case would not seem to fall under any of those, unless theres a threat we havent heard about.

Yes he had previously used lethal violence, but Im going to ASSUME that the implication in these restrictions is that the officer must have actually seen it and not just be surmising it. If thats wrong then who needs the judicial system.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Heres the thing the people defending this dont understand:

If this qualifies as a good shoot, then where is the line? Whats to stop cops from shooting literally any suspect they think committed violent crime?

When and why do you think suspected violent criminals should lose their 5th Amendment Rights? Is there any way for them to get them back?

I think somewhere after being part of a drive-by and running from the cops, you passed that line.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

In my apparently controversial opinion, if you arent holding a weapon, you arent enough of an immediate threat to deserve death.

Hypothetical:

Suspect has a gun in hand. Suspect shoots cop A in face and turns to run away. Suspect is fleeing for several seconds and is making no indication that he will stop before Cop B has a shot lined up, having been caught flat footed by his partner's murder.

Is the cop shooting justified?

Does it make a difference if the suspect dropped the weapon before turning to flee?

Or if he didn't visibly drop the weapon but it turns out he did and it just wasn't in the line of sight?

How visible does the suspect's weapon have to be while the cop is firing?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

This case would not seem to fall under any of those, unless theres a threat we havent heard about.

Yes he had previously used lethal violence, but Im going to ASSUME that the implication in these restrictions is that the officer must have actually seen it and not just be surmising it. If thats wrong then who needs the judicial system.

I agree with this. Sure we have gunpowder residue information now, but i doubt the cops had that information at the time or the guns from the floor of the car.

But again, body cams would have been reallll useful here.
---