It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Metallicus
Rose had just shot at least one person mere seconds before Officer Rosfeld defended his community
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.
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.
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.
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
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.