PA police should strike over justified Rose defensive shooting criminal charges

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Lab4Us

You're conflating the facts. The empty mag was on Rose's person. There was two firearms (both used in the crime) found in Rose's car. .40 caliber handguns in fact.

Further, surveillance footage placed Rose and his vehicle at the scene of a shooting just seconds prior to Rosfield's attempt to stop/and subsequent pursuit

Don't forget the Jitney car had 2 bullet holes in the rear windshield from return fire from the victim of the drive by. The victim whom was shot in the abdomen.

Left this in the other thread... the security cam footage of the drive by.
www.wpxi.com...

Let's not forget that the Jitney driver was questioned and released and is now a witness to this crime.

And witnesses are still claiming a 4th shot was fired at the scene where Hester and Rose fled the Jitney car.

a reply to: JBurns

‘PA code above covers LEO use of force in making arrest, private citizen use of force in making arrest, use of force in preventing escape, use of force to prevent a crime. The specific language in each section under title 18 varies, but the theme is all the same: stopping a danger to the community through use of force if absolutely required”

Was use of deadly force in this instance absolutely required? Unarmed suspect? Shot in the back?

What happened to the cops that used to chase down suspects and use apprehension technique to arrest suspects? When did it become okay to draw and just start blasting?

a reply to: JBurns

If the suspect was fleeing he most likely had his back turned. Police are supposed to shoot when they are in imminent danger not when a suspect has his back turned and is running away.

I am on the fence with this one and others like it. If the officer shoots it is questionable as whether he needed to or not. If he doesn't chances are the suspect will just go commit another crime somewhere and victimize someone else.

I thought it was unconstitutional to have signs that say "use of deadly force authorized" on places like area 51. That is openly stating that a person will be deprived of life without due process. It seems that the use of deadly force has escalated recently. I think we need some very clear legislation on this and the sooner the better. People are routinely deprived of property without due process as it stands now. This has to change.

I thought the police are justified in shooting a suspect that is fleeing from a felony when the suspect is viewed as a danger to the community.
He was fleeing from apprehension just after a drive-by shooting.... seems like a dangerous person to me. The guns were found in the car that they were in before they fled.
The officer should be able to beat this charge.

Posting this again.

www.legis.state.pa.us...

508.  Use of force in law enforcement. 

(a)  Peace officer's use of force in making arrest.-- 

(1)  A peace officer, or any person whom he has summoned or directed to assist him, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. He is justified in the use of any force which he believes to be necessary to effect the arrest and of any force which he believes to be necessary to defend himself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest. However, he is justified in using deadly force only when he believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to himself or such other person, or when he 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 or is attempting to escape and possesses a deadly weapon, or otherwise indicates that he will endanger human life or inflict serious bodily injury unless arrested without delay. 

(2)  A peace officer making an arrest pursuant to an invalid warrant is justified in the use of any force which he would be justified in using if the warrant were valid, unless he knows that the warrant is invalid. 

a reply to: JBurns

2010 Pennsylvania Code
Title 18 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES
Chapter 5 - General Principles of Justification
508 - Use of force in law enforcement.

§ 508. Use of force in law enforcement.


(a) Peace officer's use of force in making arrest.--


(1) A peace officer, or any person whom he has summoned or directed to assist him, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. He is justified in the use of any force which he believes to be necessary to effect the arrest and of any force which he believes to be necessary to defend himself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest. However, he is justified in using deadly force only when he believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to himself or such other person, or when he 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 or is attempting to escape and possesses a deadly weapon, or otherwise indicates that he will endanger human life or inflict serious bodily injury unless arrested without delay.

JUSTIA

Legally speaking, this officer will most likely be covered against criminal prosecution in this case.

I did a bit of reading up on the incident, and it appears that it has been determined that Mr. Rose was a passenger in the vehicle at the time of the drive-by shooting, and the fact that there were firearms found inside the vehicle and that there was a magazine on the person of Mr. Rose really adds to the reasonable assumption that, at the time, the officer could determine to the best of his knowledge that Rose was party to the drive-by shooting that occurred 13 minutes prior to the encounter with police officers.

There are, from what I gather, three surveillance videos that show the drive-by shooting.

What people do not understand is that, if you are suspected of having committed a felony or are suspected to be armed and dangerous, and you flee from police, in many (if not most) states, law enforcement have the legal justification to use deadly force to stop your escape.

Whether or not that's a just law is inconsequential, because it is a law that is on the books and was at the time of this incident.

I don't foresee this officer being found guilty.

That said, I fully understand why officers should be held to a higher standard in instances like this when a subject is fleeing and an officer takes his/her life, and I'm all for judicial scrutiny of such instances more often than not. It sucks for both the family/friends of Mr. Rose and that this young officer, with only literally HOURS on the force prior to this incident, is having to go through this, but it is what it is.

I will definitely say this, though--I think one individual was definitely in the wrong more than the other, and we shouldn't let emotions guide us in looking at this incident. I think that the shooting and the grand jury/trial are both appropriate, even though I predict an acquittal based on how the PA law is written. It's all about those couple of seconds in the heat of the moment that matter, not 20/20 hindsight or keyboard prosecutors.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Antipathy17

Wasn't unarmed. Had two firearms within reach in his vehicle (ie: in his possession under the law)

He matched the description of the shooter they were pursuing from seconds earlier.

He took off running (only guilty people do that)

After all was said and done, it turned out Officer Rosfield was right. A search of shooter Rose's vehicle revealed two .40 caliber handguns along with an empty magazine in his pocket.

It is OK to shoot someone in the back when you're protecting the community from that person. After all, he had just shot at least one another person and would gladly shoot and kill a police officer to escape. What about the person he shot/held at gunpoint if he'd have gotten away? You know he would've had to do that, right? If criminal Rose would've escaped, he would have TERRORIZED an innocent home/vehicle owner when he needed to hide out and duck police

How many lives need to be lost/people injured/victimized before you admit this criminal needed to be stopped in his tracks.

You know, you and I seem to agree on a lot of things, based on ATS posts. I’m just going to have to agree to disagree here as I am somewhat a believer in due process, especially relative to the death penalty.

a reply to: Lab4Us

It is not a deadly weapon, that is true. But given that Rose matched the description (both his person and his vehicle) there is every reason to believe he was still likely armed. I admit he was not armed once he left the vehicle, but the officer had every reason to think he could have been

I retired years ago, but if I was responding to a call whether you were a LEO or citizen I would have given you the same consideration of the facts. Ultimately it is up to the prosecutors who is charged with a crime, but knowing the totality of the circumstances I'd have been inclined to side with you in as much as I possibly could under the exact same circumstances

In a situation like the one above, where you stopped a person that had just been involved in a shooting, if I was the officer responding you would not have been leaving that scene in handcuffs any more than the gentleman in Texas who stopped a mass shooter did.

I understand where you are coming from though. Shooting someone in the back always sounds/looks bad. But in this case, it seems justified to me at least knowing PA law. Of course that isn't true in all states, but PA (among several others, such as KY or TN for example) it sure is

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Lab4Us

You're conflating the facts. The empty mag was on Rose's person. There was two firearms (both used in the crime) found in Rose's car. .40 caliber handguns in fact.

Further, surveillance footage placed Rose and his vehicle at the scene of a shooting just seconds prior to Rosfield's attempt to stop/and subsequent pursuit

The officer did not know these things as facts at the time.

The fine line, it seems the person was a danger to public (drive by) but the officer was not a witness. It could as well have been the wrong person.

I wish the officer could be proved to have known more.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: toysforadults

Im retired, and never shot anybody so I do not think I need the lecture. I don't disagree with you. But this isn't a case of judge/jury/executioner at least doesn't look like it to me

To be honest, this is not a call any new officer (Regardless of their past work experience) should have been responding to. Where was Rosfield's FTO?

There's clearly a problem in the culture of police departments in this country that you think it's your job to kill everyone who has been determined by you to be unsafe for the community.

I dont think that. Who thinks that? No one I know. But PA law does allow an exceptionally grave danger to be stopped by police or members of the community (if they are assisting an LEO or making a private arrest). One such condition is an armed felon fleeing

www.legis.state.pa.us...

PA code above covers LEO use of force in making arrest, private citizen use of force in making arrest, use of force in preventing escape, use of force to prevent a crime. The specific language in each section under title 18 varies, but the theme is all the same: stopping a danger to the community through use of force if absolutely required

I just love these people. They're actually arguing that the right to due process means the police can't shoot someone because their case hasn't been adjudicated yet. Imagine the implications of that. Active shooter? Nope, can't shoot him, he hasn't been given due process yet. Raping a kid with a medieval mace? Nope, can't shoot him. Hasn't been given due process yet.

Think these things through folks.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: JBurns

If the suspect was fleeing he most likely had his back turned. Police are supposed to shoot when they are in imminent danger not when a suspect has his back turned and is running away.

I am on the fence with this one and others like it. If the officer shoots it is questionable as whether he needed to or not. If he doesn't chances are the suspect will just go commit another crime somewhere and victimize someone else.

I thought it was unconstitutional to have signs that say "use of deadly force authorized" on places like area 51. That is openly stating that a person will be deprived of life without due process. It seems that the use of deadly force has escalated recently. I think we need some very clear legislation on this and the sooner the better. People are routinely deprived of property without due process as it stands now. This has to change.

The problem is real life isn't so cut and dry from an officer's point of view. What may look like shooting someone wantonly in the back, could be a delayed reaction to a perceived threat. Camera angles also can't necessarily show what the officer sees.

At the end of the day, while I want officers who are corrupt and use extreme force unnecessarily to be prosecuted, I am not losing any sleep over Antwon Rose.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Metallicus

Rose had just shot at least one person mere seconds before Officer Rosfeld defended his community

I'm new to researching this case--has there been an autopsy report released to the public? Was gun powder residue found on his hands or anywhere else?

While this is rather inconsequential at the time of the incident, it will matter during the trial to help bolster the claim that there was justification to presume him to be armed and dangerous as he was fleeing.

a reply to: face23785

Active shooter? Nope, can't shoot him, he hasn't been given due process yet. Raping a kid with a medieval mace? Nope, can't shoot him. Hasn't been given due process yet.

And that wasn't the circumstance here.

It is a different situation when someone is "in the act".

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: JBurns

If the suspect was fleeing he most likely had his back turned. Police are supposed to shoot when they are in imminent danger not when a suspect has his back turned and is running away.

This is wrong, as shown by me and Bigburgh posting thPA Statute that governs police use of force and specifically allows for deadly force when a suspect is fleeing.

It's a commonly held misconception that you have, but you are looking at it through the eyes of allowed use of force for civilians, not law enforcement.

a reply to: Lab4Us

I understand, and I apologize for barking out at you Lab4Us

It hurts my feelings personally to see the home team take hits like this

But I agree with you in that LEOs are not judges or juries, and should never act as executioners. That deadly force should be used for extreme circumstances

Sorry for being snappy Lab4Us

originally posted by: JBurns
After all was said and done, it turned out Officer Rosfield was right. A search of shooter Rose's vehicle revealed two .40 caliber handguns along with an empty magazine in his pocket.

Sure, he was right, but what if he wasn't?? What if they were all running because they had weed and didn't want to get in trouble?? Yes, running is stupid period, but would he have deserved to die because of it??

That's why people are upset and want something to be done about it. He took a gamble that ended up being correct, but it was a gamble. Technically he gambled on taking this kids life without fully knowing whether or not he was the shooter.

originally posted by: toysforadults
You should talk to your fellow officers and tell them that next time they decide to beat the crap out of someone...

or decide they are going to stalk and follow people who aren't doing anything wrong in their cars just to harass them maybe people would be more inclined to see their side of the story

I've seen WAY WAY to many bad apples in police forces and been harassed by police officers for no reason

just 2 years ago I had a guy follow me around for literally 45 minutes while I went food shopping and was taking care of some daily task. he followed me to 3 different stores and finally I pulled over got out of the car and started walking up to him and he drove off

yeah it's really common

Here's another example of this sort of behavior.

www.canoncitydailyrecord.com...

Sure, the guy is going to trial, but look at the smug look on his face. It's almost as if he doesn't care because he feels he'll be let go. Worst part is, he probably will.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: toysforadults

Im retired, and never shot anybody so I do not think I need the lecture. I don't disagree with you. But this isn't a case of judge/jury/executioner at least doesn't look like it to me

To be honest, this is not a call any new officer (Regardless of their past work experience) should have been responding to. Where was Rosfield's FTO?

There's clearly a problem in the culture of police departments in this country that you think it's your job to kill everyone who has been determined by you to be unsafe for the community.

I dont think that. Who thinks that? No one I know. But PA law does allow an exceptionally grave danger to be stopped by police or members of the community (if they are assisting an LEO or making a private arrest). One such condition is an armed felon fleeing

www.legis.state.pa.us...

PA code above covers LEO use of force in making arrest, private citizen use of force in making arrest, use of force in preventing escape, use of force to prevent a crime. The specific language in each section under title 18 varies, but the theme is all the same: stopping a danger to the community through use of force if absolutely required

I just love these people. They're actually arguing that the right to due process means the police can't shoot someone because their case hasn't been adjudicated yet. Imagine the implications of that. Active shooter? Nope, can't shoot him, he hasn't been given due process yet. Raping a kid with a medieval mace? Nope, can't shoot him. Hasn't been given due process yet.

Think these things through folks.

Incorrect. Had the officer that killed Rose seen Rose shoot someone, obviously good shoot for sure. Had Rose had a gun in his hand when the officer shot him, obviously good shoot. In your two examples, perps have weapons employed, harming others, so obviously good shoots. There is a difference.

I don't have a lot of sympathy for cops who shoot people in the back. and yes..while running away he was unarmed, you guys twist things.
As for Rose, he lived a dangerous life and paid the price.

a reply to: Necrobile

and this is probably why this is even a topic of conversation

there's been to many instances where the officers assumptions have been wrong and innocent or people who didn't deserve to die died because of the reason you list above

if this happened far less often this probably wouldn't even be an issue, but it happens a lot

Double.