PA police should strike over justified Rose defensive shooting criminal charges

a reply to: JBurns

see, you're right.

#2 in the second clause is the most likely outcome in this case. but he didn't have a weapon, though he had accessories for weapons on him.

this case may cause a lot of turmoil because of the amount of technicalities involved.

Back from the dentist and watched the recording of D.A. Stephen Zappala......

WOW and just WOW...
So Rosfeld IS is in deep sh!t.
Hester was the only one that fired out of the back of the car.
Someone else returned fire at the original driveby, not the victim who survived.

The Jitney driver may be charged as an accessory to a crime.

2 guns found, a .9mm under the front passenger seat and a .40 too (With extended clips) both guns stolen and the ballistics on the .40matched up with 3 other shooting crimes. (with body count)

There are several cell phone videos, security & 1 port authority video.. but they are given one video more credibility, A YouTube video..

Antwon Rose was shot 3 times as we already knew.
Antwon Rose is considered or is COMPLETELY INNOCENT .
There is more stuff to be looked into.

Must be rushing this case through then?

Oh! And the Ass Spanking from the first speaker, that gave TO and ABOUT the press for being irresponsible about false reporting everything.. called them "FAILURE AT DOING THEIR JOBS"

Now will the illegal protesting stop, now that Zappala appears to be going after and prosecuting Officer Rosfeld?

Welp!

originally posted by: JBurns
The decedent had just shot another human being...

Is that accurate? I thought I read that the police stated the footage did not show this. Please provide a link.

This is what happens after so many cover ups in other high profile cases.

Hands up don't shoot.

Karma is a bitch.

Perhaps he will get more than what others have gotten.

A fair trial.

The other person turned himself in.

Likely this will not go far if everyone just sticks to the truth and facts this time around.

a reply to: Bigburgh

Some great media we have! I was just listening to the clip where they said the reports of Rose firing the gun were false. How much harm will fake-stream media cause before they start responsibly reporting news again

Talk about a #-show and a half. So it looks as though Antwon Rose was present in the vehicle and nothing more?

a reply to: odzeandennz

Thanks od

From what I am hearing on here and elsewhere, Antwon Rose wasn't even involved in the drive by shooting contrary to false reports by main stream media

Now speaking of those technicalities, I wonder if the officer's perception will come into play at all because otherwise he is staring down some serious charges

More to come hopefully

a reply to: JBurns

So now this is a police officer shooting an unarmed person in the back while running away from the police?

a reply to: shooterbrody

It is starting to look that way

The media had been reporting that Antwon was involved in the shooting/had actually even fired a weapon. Those reports (according to Allegheny Co. DA's office) were entirely untrue and essentially made up by the news media

If that is indeed the circumstances, I will be the first to admit I was dead wrong about this

a reply to: JBurns

I get the feeling that much of the news media research now is reading a few pages on internet web sites.

Wonder if they can get Hester not only on Attempted Murder in the Braddock shooting, but Wrongful Death charges for Antwon Rose as his original actions led to this???

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

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.

GSR tests came back negative and even more so the officer changed hist story two times while being questioned. First he stated that he believed Mr. Rose to be holding something which looked like a gun and looking back and pointing it at him, then later he stated that he was empty handed, then reverted back to saying he had something but he was unsure of what in his hand.

a reply to: JBurns

You should read the criminal complaint that is being filed against officer Rosfeld, because it states that at least one of those (the one about him firing shots) as of now are in fact media fabrications and untrue.

L ink to the complaint at the bottom of this page

Still confused as to why reporters said Zappala Confirmed that a .9mm clip was in Rose's front pocket.

Start at 1:01 as the reporter states this very thing that Zappala Confirmed this. Swear to god I saw Zappala say to reporters about the 9mm Clip found on Rose too. But can't find that video clip at all now.
Christ how does even local media get away with lying about this. F#ck I got played! I took this and told others that were asking... I perpetrated a lie. SMH.
m.youtube.com...

Edit: Jon Delano is the reporter

a reply to: JBurns

Same here.
Like I posted yesterday, that a friend of mine who is County cop said something that is not the case at all now.

And I forwarded that info. I'm the ass now

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: odzeandennz

Now speaking of those technicalities, I wonder if the officer's perception will come into play at all because otherwise he is staring down some serious charges

Speaking from a strictly legal standpoint, the onus will lie with the prosecution to convince the jury that the officer didn't actually believe in the dangerous nature of Rose at the time.

With the specific wording in the law, we must note the word phrase "... he believes ...," which shows up four times within the three sentences in Section 508(a)(1). That entire law leaves the judgment up to the subjective interpretation of events made by the officer in the heat of the moment.

What will need to be taken into account is the amount of knowledge by the officer relayed to him by dispatch and other radio traffic leading up to the encounter. If what he "knew" at the time would reasonably lead him to believe that all three individuals in the car were party to the drive-by and active participants, meaning that they could be reasonably assumed to be armed and dangerous, then this officer will most likely walk away with an acquittal.

This whole thread and case is a reminder about waiting until official investigations and all information is let known to the public. Far too often we tend to knee-jerk react and even give appropriate time before making up our minds, but often forget that as time goes on, more info will continue to come out. It's good to see that most of us in this thread are willing to accept new reports and evidence and apply it to our determinations.

This is why, in my initial comment, I noted that I think that grand juries, at the very least, are a warranted process in many OISes.

Again, I still don't think that this will end in conviction, and until I know what he was told up until the confrontation and shooting, I'm going to withhold judgment on his actions.

I need to see the DA's conference...off to find that...

a reply to: JBurns

So even with this new info, according to pa law if this officer believed he was in danger, or that a felon was fleeing would this shooting be legal?

Thanks for your honest insight into this, it is appreciated.

This video, from "The Rebel," was posted today and breaks it down pretty well, even citing the SCOTUS ruling that seems to have provided the language in the PA statute (and probably many other states' laws). It's 20 min, but a good watch.

bump
www.ebony.com...

The East Pittsburgh police officer who shot and killed unarmed 17-year-old Antwon Rose has been charged with criminal homicide after prosecutors determined that he was never threatened during the incident, NBC News reports.

www.nytimes.com...

In Pennsylvania, a criminal homicide charge enables prosecutors to argue for a range of more specific charges, from involuntary manslaughter to first-degree murder. Mr. Zappala said prosecutors would try to make a case for first-degree murder, which carries a life sentence.

The district attorney’s office also plans to refer the case to the office of the United States attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania because of problems that investigators uncovered with the East Pittsburgh Police Department.

Seems justice is going to have its day.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Seems justice is going to have its day.

Maybe,
If the prosecutor is going for 1st degree murder, then they are setting it up to fail..they seem to do that a lot.
Go for a very difficult charge to prove..fail, and say..we tried.

So if the Parkland shooter had been running away from the school would it have been alright to shoot him in the back? I think once you've gone for murder you've pretty much given up any protections for yourself. I would hope the police would do everything in their power to catch and stop them.

If not then every criminal will know he can get away with it if he's fast enough.
Then he can stop at the next corner and wait in ambush for the police.
Were putting police in a no-win situation while putting the public at risk.
Size of protests should have no effect on criminal charges or not.