PA police should strike over justified Rose defensive shooting criminal charges

a reply to: JBurns
I didn’t know you were a cop before. Now all this makes sense.

Brothers before others, huh?

a reply to: JBurns

The shot out window makes it more likely then not but is may also be the wrong car.

originally posted by: WalterTilley
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

that would be an open shut case. he would deserve to die. officers are by law, required to shoot to defend their lives and innocent civilian lives.
when there is an obvious threat to the leo or the public, deadly force is authorized; weapons free.

just not in the case of a perp fleeing arrest.... the show 'cops' would never have been on tv if Leos were authorized to kill perps trying to avoid arrest for whatever reason.

this is a bad situation, but the Leo is wrong.

a reply to: WalterTilley

Well, I doubt he would have faced any criminal consequences but he could have been sued for negligence (possibly, that is an untested theory of a non-attorney)

At the very least, I would not have been able to sleep at night knowing I failed to act and that innocent people were hurt or killed because I didnt do my job

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

They never seem to think of it that way Walter Sadly most are eager to jump on any police officer whenever possible. I just do not get the hatred. Am happy to see some here (yourself included) are looking at this objectively though

I appreciate it

a reply to: roadgravel

Hey no doubt about it, if the circumstances had been different this would be entirely different. If this was another state it would be different (one that didn't authorize deadly force to stop the flight of someone committing a forcible felony). Heck, if the officer would have mis-identified this individual/situation, it would be entirely different

But PA does indeed permit force (and even deadly force) under these very specific and unfortunate circumstances.

I don't want to keep quoting statutory language here, because I know no one is interested in that conversation. But just try to look at the facts and circumstances. Officer Rosfield is also a young man with his heart and mind in the right place, and whatever happened out there he did not go out that day looking for trouble or looking to shoot anybody

a reply to: JBurns

It seems to me the wording "believes" is there for a reason. Officer acting in good faith so the speak, unless negligence or some thing along those lines.

originally posted by: WalterTilley
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

You cant play what ifs.

What if the cop shoots and misses and kills a kid? What if game does not work.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

The purpose as I've read it in my research is to protect the general public from a suspected armed and dangerous felon. In this case, one who most likely just committed a drive-by shooting and already showed a wanton disregard for human life.

In general, these people (those with wanton disregard for human life) don't suddenly care about other human life just because they're wearing blue and have a badge. In fact, that often elicits deadly force BECAUSE of the blue and badge.

This sort of thing does not happen very often, thankfully, but I fully understand the reason for the allowance. Now, if it happens and there's no justifiable reason for it, like is highlighted in the statute, then the police officer should absolutely be jailed for the murder of another human being.

I think it’s a judgement call made in a split second that a jury will have to critique. What I will say is that it’s really easy to pass judgement when you’re not in that scenario. Things can go south really quick for LEOS and there are plenty of videos out there detailing gruesome deaths of cops that second guessed themselves.

originally posted by: face23785

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?

Well, first, you don’t know me and if you did, I think you’d find I’m as far from anti-cop as anyone you currently know. That said, I am not pro mercenary cop.

Next, a review of my post history will demonstrate my feelings about bangers in general.

Finally, I will be suprised if a jury finds reasonable suspicion since officer did not see the shooting, did not see any deadly weapon on running suspect, and did not know guns were in the car until after the fact.

Having watched the press conference, if, in fact, there have been three shootings in the back of unarmed suspects by this PD recently, it would seem this may be an institutional issue vs an individual officer issue. Even LEO here questions why a rookie (a 2 hour rookie at that) was on the street alone.

As I mentioned earlier, cops used to pursue and arrest, not immediately draw and blast at running suspects. Are the departments hiring physically unfit officers who can’t outrun and capture the thugs, sans deadly force?

Maybe the answer is not to keep shooting criminals to death, try arresting them, I cant believe that the murder of citizens who have broken the law is now accepted.

I have no problem with another civilian protecting themselves BUT to have LEO's just using lethal force to resolve criminality is IMO wrong, justice is not served from a 9mm bullet.

I am totally for the Police as in the UK, they do not shoot first and state later "in that moment i feared for my life"

Any perosn willing to risk there own life/body/mind to protect others is braver than myself.

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: WalterTilley
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

You cant play what ifs.

What if the cop shoots and misses and kills a kid? What if game does not work.

No need to play what ifs... the deceased was invoved in a drive by shooting moments before. He or his cohort had shot a person in that shooting.
I am waiting to see GSR tests from the hands of Rose.
That, along with fingerprint analysis and ballistics reports from the two recovered handguns and the ballistics report on bullets from the driveby shooting victim.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: WalterTilley
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

You cant play what ifs.

What if the cop shoots and misses and kills a kid? What if game does not work.

No need to play what ifs... the deceased was invoved in a drive by shooting moments before. He or his cohort had shot a person in that shooting.
I am waiting to see GSR tests from the hands of Rose.
That, along with fingerprint analysis and ballistics reports from the two recovered handguns and the ballistics report on bullets from the driveby shooting victim.

that doesn't change the protocol of when to kill a suspect

a reply to: JBurns

well, that Leo has a long road ahead to prove his innocence after these statements

Detectives who interviewed Rosfeld, alongside his attorney, said they noticed an inconsistency in his account of what happened, according to the affidavit.

The officer allegedly told detectives that when the front-seat passenger emerged from the vehicle, the individual turned his hand toward Rosfeld, who saw something dark that he perceived as a gun. This caused him to fire his weapon, according to the affidavit.

But when detectives asked Rosfeld to go over the sequence of events again, the officer allegedly told them he didn't see a gun when the passenger exited the vehicle and ran. Detectives confronted him with the inconsistency, and Rosfeld allegedly stated that he saw something in the passenger's hand but was unsure what it was.

Rosfeld also allegedly stated that he was unsure whether the individual who had his hand pointed at him was still pointing at him when he fired the shots, according to the affidavit.

a reply to: odzeandennz

You think this young man's inability to specifically recall certain events on command makes him guilty of criminal homicide? It seems to me that Antwon Rose was likely trying to ditch the magazine, and could've been reaching in his pockets to do just that. That could have been when he misidentified the magazine as a firearm (which 2/3 turned out to be in Rose's vehicle). If there is inconsistencies, traumatic events such as this could certainly explain them. If not, then I'm sure that will come out with the body-cam footage assuming they have them

Given the totality of these circumstances, he should be given the benefit of the doubt. What you say is malice I chalk up to inexperience or the City leadership letting their hard working men & women officers down by seemingly foregoing a period of supervision/training/acclimation to his new job.

With the description of Rose's vehicle (and the shot out back window) along with whatever other circumstances lead up to his suspicion that Rose & his companion(s) were involved with the shooting. All reasonable doubt that Rose could've been a victim of the drive-by shooting (as indicated by that shot out window/additional information) was eliminated when he took off running.

You're giving the bad guy every benefit of the doubt/excuse while looking at this young officer like the frozen cave man. That isn't right. His actions are justifiable under PA law, the very law he is sworn to uphold and did.

a reply to: JBurns

The decedent had just shot another human being and was actively fleeing (both circumstances permit deadly force under PA law)

Uh, yea.......that's not the typical "bad cop" unauthorized killing like the one of the guy shot while laying on his stomach, hands behind his back.

That's a murderer fleeing the crime scene after commiting a felony murder in plain view of the officer and then trying to escape WITH the smoking gun. You just don't let armed murderers run rampant through the streets.

a reply to: underwerks

No, more like "people who uphold the law and serve their communities over criminals who just shot somebody"

How does this violate PA law? The facts of this case are seemingly incontrovertible under PA law.

He had just committed a violent crime (a forcible felony) and was fleeing to escape arrest. Under PA law, it is justifiable as several others (Bigburgh and Slapmonkey specifically) pointed out several times

a reply to: odzeandennz

Prove his innocence? Now you want to reverse the burden of proof.

Luckily for you (and probably despite their own self interest) the honorable men and women of Pittsburgh PD will no doubt continue to be on the job day in-day out. This is despite the fact their elected officials clearly do not support them and the difficult and dangerous work they do. Terrible thing to see them seemingly let down so bad by this "DA"

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: odzeandennz

You think this young man's inability to specifically recall certain events on command makes him guilty of criminal homicide? It seems to me that Antwon Rose was likely trying to ditch the magazine, and could've been reaching in his pockets to do just that. That could have been when he misidentified the magazine as a firearm (which 2/3 turned out to be in Rose's vehicle). If there is inconsistencies, traumatic events such as this could certainly explain them. If not, then I'm sure that will come out with the body-cam footage assuming they have them

well, that would make sense if rose was getting out of the driver's side. he was the passenger . and i think thats why the leo recanted his original statements.

he killed rose after rose was on foot running away from him, whilst the driver ran in the same direction, who according to the leo didn't (or cant recall) had a weapon pointed at him. he didn't shoot rose while rose was trying to pull anything from his pockets facing the leo.

no one is painting gangbangers punks for saints, but the leo may have simply killed the punks to stop him from running.
..

but, you're right. there will be body cam footage. we will see.

otherwise until they add *under duress, panic, heat of the moment* in the reason to shoot a perp, Leo's should be subject to charges if they kill without following protocol.

a reply to: odzeandennz

but the leo may have simply killed the punks to stop him from running.

And if so, I am certain those facts will come out with the bodycam footage (or cctv, there are cameras every where)

I still must point out that even if what you say is true, the shooting would still be legally justified under PA law assuming both the following two things are true:

1) such force is necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by resistance or escape; and

2) 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.

Not every state has laws permitting deadly force in those circumstances, but PA is one that does