PA police should strike over justified Rose defensive shooting criminal charges

Local D.A. is expected to speak live..
pittsburgh.cbslocal.com...

Guy speaking now is blasting the media for delivering false info.... wow he's pissed off!



pittsburgh.cbslocal.com...
Police Arrest Teen Who Also Ran From Vehicle During Antwon Rose Shooting

...
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.

The word "believes" and the arrest wording might be important in this situation.

a reply to: JBurns

Im sry but the police dont protect us from shi..

as much as i hate this situation, and its good riddance that pos is dead, however, if you can't mak an arrest, you don't just kill someone running away.

you're not judge jury executioner.

your job s to make an arrest bring the perp to Justice. if your life is in danger, then you use deadly force. not that hard. otherwise police would just go out and kill anyone they think is a criminal...

jury is never going to convict the cop anyway.
They never do.

Good, strike, and never come back...

a reply to: JBurns

First line of your op.

A police officer who shot violent fleeing felon

He was fleeing and shot in the back.. If a guy breaks into my house and I shoot him in the front yard as he is running away I get charged right?

And it will be the same cops arresting me that want it to be ok for them..

originally posted by: notsure1
If a guy breaks into my house and I shoot him in the front yard as he is running away I get charged right?

Are you a cop?? If not, then yes, you'll get charged and convicted. Well, unless you're rich, then I'm sure you'll be let go as well.

a reply to: Necrobile

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 would not have been a good reason at all. If he was running with a little bit of weed or whatever else, it would have been a totally different (not very unusual) story. The officer was right this time, but I think that is the kind of judgement you build with years on the job not being sworn in and thrown right in the sh## without a FTO present at all times

I know he was a UPMC hospital police officer, which is a sworn position. But there is a big difference from patrolling city streets and responding to all sorts of calls and protecting a campus/hospital/finite area. I think it was wrong he wasn't paired with a more experienced officer

I understand where you are coming from, but if you read Title 18 Section 508 of PA statutes you will see the officer did not break the law by shooting a fleeing person in the back

I do agree that such use of force should always be reserved for the most serious circumstances. I am not advocating for removal of due process or summary execution. But this is not a case of t hat

a reply to: Necrobile

Depends. Is he charging toward your neighbor? Do you have reason to believe he will cause severe physical harm or death to yourself or another person? Are you in actual fear for your own life, or do you believe a third person is reasonably in fear of their life/severe harm and would your actions be justified *if* they were the ones taking that action?

a reply to: notsure1

Not necessarily. It is State specific. Read PA title 18 section 508 as it pertains to private citizens use of force in arrest or assisting in arrest

(b) Private person's use of force in making arrest.--

(1) A private person who makes, or assists another private person in making a lawful arrest is justified in the use of any force which he would be justified in using if he were summoned or directed by a peace officer to make such arrest, except that he is justified in the use of deadly force only when he believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to himself or another.

(2) A private person who is summoned or directed by a peace officer to assist in making an arrest which is unlawful, is justified in the use of any force which he would be justified in using if the arrest were lawful, unless he knows that the arrest is unlawful.

(3) A private person who assists another private person in effecting an unlawful arrest, or who, not being summoned, assists a peace officer in effecting an unlawful arrest, is justified in using any force which he would be justified in using if the arrest were lawful, if:

(i) he believes the arrest is lawful; and

(ii) the arrest would be lawful if the facts were as he believes them to be.

I am only pointing out that while shooting someone in the back does look bad, it is not a universally criminal action

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

a reply to: JBurns

all found AFTER he was shot and killed. just becuase you can justify you actions after the fact doesnt mean the officer had a reason to shoot him. like another poster said:
This officer did not see Rose shoot anyone.
The officer saw no weapon.
The officer was under no threat.

Those are the facts known at the time of the shooting, this crap you find afterwords is of no consequence.

a reply to: JBurns

I have to disagree

I am a mover. If I make a mistake and break a priceless work of art, its my ass.

If a mechanic makes a mistake and causes an accident, its his ass.

Cops are doing a job. As noble as it is, its a PAID service. If they kill the community, good or bad as it may be, they fail. It should be their ass.

We have soldier cops, outright impunity in most cases and we are Effing sick of it.

They should quit. All cities should hire private security that is under strictly enforced contract and is fully accountable.

Non union too so the city is not robbed blind for nothing at all in exchange.

Cops in my country have set themselves as prime citizens to be counted apart from the lower masses. Thats BS.

This young cop should have RAN and FOUGHT the guy. Or called for back up. If he has a gun shoot. If not, subdue. If you cant do that then become a mercenary instead.

a reply to: Bigburgh

Thanks Tim, watching now

a reply to: JBurns

In this issue, how much weight does the "officer believes" carry in his defense?

a reply to: JBurns

I am just wondering if there would be any ramifications back on said PO if the kid got away during the chase and then took some family hostage or killed more people after getting away?

How would people here feel if he got away and killed one of their family?

It is a slippery slope no doubt

originally posted by: Lab4Us

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.

Fair enough, my example was over the top. The point, though, is that the right to due process doesn't render police impotent to act until you've been tried and convicted. That's a red herring. Once we've established that, the next step is to determine the criteria under which an officer can justifiably shoot someone. And being in the physical act of harming someone is not the only instance in which an officer is justified in shooting you. The officer in this case had reasonable suspicion that the perp posed a danger to the public. It's a justified shooting.

Don't do drive-bys and run when you get stopped by the police.

Are these seriously the type of scum the anti-cop brigade want to rally behind?

The back window was shot out in the vehicle.

This wasn't a shoplifting call. Or a person with weed. Or two men fighting.

The car had just been involved in an attempted murder/shooting. Antwon Rose was involved in that shooting. Had they decided to cooperate and surrender themselves to police, they'd still be alive today.

PA law specifically permits the action this officer took. And there were three guns used, two .40 caliber handguns and 1 .45 caliber handgun.

I am fully confident he will be exonerated. And Officer Rosfield/his attorney should pursue malicious prosecution claim against the DA.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I stand corrected. Thank you.

I really did believe it was the same but I guess there should be some differences since law enforcement is going to be in that situation far more often than a civilian would. It still seems odd to me though, that a person with his back turned and is fleeing should get shot. I know he could have a gun in his hand and turn and use it at any time, but it seems a bit too aggressive to shoot until he does turn.

I called it the superman pose, but whatever it is, I think we need a recognizable 'don't shoot' condition that is no threat to police and can be assumed by any suspect at any time. Superman works in my opinion because the arms and legs are outstretched as far as possible, and the suspect is face down on the ground. If a hand disappears into a jacket, fire away.

PA Title 18, Section 508 (a) (1)

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.

As evidenced by the shot out back window of Rose's vehicle