Pittsburgh protesters shut down highway for hours over fatal police shooting of unarmed teen [W:425]

[MateoMtnClimber]

Like I said, I'll reserve judgement until all evidence is submitted.

Then do that. Don't pull Tennessee v Garner out of thin air. Come back to the thread after the verdict is read.

 

[Maccabee]

Then do that. Don't pull Tennessee v Garner out of thin air. Come back to the thread after the verdict is read.

Tennessee v. Garner was in reference to the general idea of shooting fleeing suspects which may or may not apply.

 

[AGENT J]

Like I said, I don't know much other than what is reported. He's being charged for the incident so we'll see how the court will rule. All I'm saying right now that you can have probable cause for lethal force even if you don't see a weapon and he's running away as Tennessee v. Garner ruled.

Uhm are you even familiar with that case or did you just read it on some other site and took thier word for it LOL
That was based on a TENNESSEE statute based on arrest of a confirmed criminal and the person shot was a confirmed escaping burglar witnessed by the officer, that case has ZERO bearing to this one.

 

[PTF]

Like I said, I don't know much other than what is reported. He's being charged for the incident so we'll see how the court will rule. All I'm saying right now that you can have probable cause for lethal force even if you don't see a weapon and he's running away as Tennessee v. Garner ruled.

What I have highlighted will be part of officer Michael Rosfeld's defense. Based on this Rosfeld may be vindicated.

 

[AGENT J]

What I have highlighted will be part of officer Michael Rosfeld's defense. Based on this Rosfeld may be vindicated.

see post #703 what you highlighted from that court case doesnt apply here.

 

[Maccabee]

Uhm are you even familiar with that case or did you just read it on some other site and took thier word for it LOL
That was based on a TENNESSEE statute based on arrest of a confirmed criminal and the person shot was a confirmed escaping burglar witnessed by the officer, that case has ZERO bearing to this one.

According to the holding, it does apply.

"Law enforcement officers pursuing an unarmed suspect may use deadly force to prevent escape only if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."

 

[Maccabee]

This is not a fleeing suspect case even if Antwon was involved in the drive by. Tennessee v Garner has no relevance. He hadn't been identified. The car hadn't been identified. He wasn't a suspect; and he posed no reasonable threat. Rosfeld never even made that claim. He lied and said that he thought Antwon might have had a gun. Later he said he knew he didn't. He'll need a better defense than that.

Something that I missed in my first response. This is certainly a fleeing suspect. In fact any time you run from the police, you almost always become a fleeing suspect. That's why cops chase you.

 

[Oborosen]

Those cops should be handled too. Happy now?

...sigh

Don't jump on something so quickly, or make a statement out of derision.

Just because the report reads as unarmed, does not mean they were not endangering someone's life. In a majority of cases like these, the police were being assaulted by the person they shot.

 

[Oborosen]

Re: Pittsburgh protesters shut down highway for hours over fatal police shooting of unarmed teen Ant

Bull****. Why can't you stick to the truth? They chanted, "What do we want? Justice. When do we want it? Now."

A claim that neither of us have a way of verifying. I said "pretty sure" because I have seen it in nearly every BLM protest I've seen. So it was not an unreasonable assessment to have for that situation.

I wasn't at this protest, so I know I can't say for sure what they were actually chanting all the way through it and I am pretty sure you weren't there for the whole protest either. No matter how many good people are BLM, the jackasses always show up at some point.

 

[AGENT J]

According to the holding, it does apply.

"Law enforcement officers pursuing an unarmed suspect may use deadly force to prevent escape only if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."

Did this happen in Tennessee? no
then no it doesnt.
And even in Tennessee this wouldnt be a good shoot ubder this statue because when you look at the whole statue
again, it doesnt apply. It it talks about a known criminal and after the intent to arrest has been made. There was no KNOWN criminal nor was intent to "arrest" made

In using deadly force to prevent the escape, Hymon was acting under the authority of a Tennessee statute and pursuant to Local Police Department policy.

The statute provides that

"f, after notice of the intention to arrest the defendant, he either flee or forcibly resist, the officer may use all the necessary means to effect the arrest."
Tenn.Code Ann.

[5]
40-7-108 (1982). [Footnote 5] The Local Department policy was slightly more restrictive than the statute, but still allowed the use of deadly force in cases of burglary. App. 140-144. The incident was reviewed by the Memphis Police Firearm's Review Board and presented to a grand jury. Neither took any action. Id. at 57.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/1/case.html

 

[Maccabee]

Did this happen in Tennessee? no
then no it doesnt.

Why would that matter when the case is a federal ruling? Every police academy mentions this case precisely because it affects them.

And even in Tennessee this wouldnt be a good shoot ubder this statue because when you look at the whole statue
again, it doesnt apply. It it talks about a known criminal and after the intent to arrest has been made. There was no KNOWN criminal nor was intent to "arrest" made


https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/1/case.html

And this is relevant how? The court ruled that shooting the burglary suspect was justified, along with that ruling, they also said officers have the ability to shoot fleeing suspects if he reasonably believes that the suspect is a great danger to either himself, his fellow officers, or the general public.

 

[AGENT J]

1.) Why would that matter when the case is a federal ruling? Every police academy mentions this case precisely because it affects them.
2.)And this is relevant how? The court ruled that shooting the burglary suspect was justified,
3.) along with that ruling, they also said officers have the ability to shoot fleeing suspects if he reasonably believes that the suspect is a great danger to either himself, his fellow officers, or the general public.

1.) easy because the ruling was based on the TENNESSEE statue existing. If PA doesnt have one very similar then you cant say" but Tennessee has one" lol
2.) a WITNESSED burglary by the cop HUGE difference, who was witnessed in this car doing ANYTHING?
3.) again which is not present in this case because none of that is known. you keep proving your claims hold no water.

A cop seeing a felony happen and then in pursuit of that suspect is greatly different then having people pulled over that could or could not be the people you are looking for.
you understand by your failed logic it would mean the cop could shoot ANYBODY and EVERYBODY he pulled over that night based on car description if they ran LMAO No thats not how it works.

at the time of the shot NOTHING was known besides the car matched the description and it seem the news and mayor are saying he violated procedure conducting a possible felony stop by himself which is exactly why there are procedures for this not to happen. Unless NEW info comes out theres nothing in this case that justifies deadly force of a fleeing suspect.

 

[Maccabee]

1.) easy because the ruling was based on the TENNESSEE statue existing. If PA doesnt have one very similar then you cant say" but Tennessee has one" lol

But I'm not saying that. I'm saying this ruling applies to all officers and gave all officers the same probable cause.

2.) a WITNESSED burglary by the cop HUGE difference, who was witnessed in this car doing ANYTHING?

A witness isn't needed for probable cause.

3.) again which is not present in this case because none of that is known. you keep proving your claims hold no water.

A cop seeing a felony happen and then in pursuit of that suspect is greatly different then having people pulled over that could or could not be the people you are looking for.
you understand by your failed logic it would mean the cop could shoot ANYBODY and EVERYBODY he pulled over that night based on car description if they ran LMAO No thats not how it works.

Like I said, I don't know what the officer saw and he could be wrong for all I know. All I'm clarifying is that you don't need to see a weapon or even the crime being committed in some cases to have probable cause to use lethal force. Again, if you can articulate what caused you to have probable cause to shoot in the first place and it is deemed reasonable then it's justified.

at the time of the shot NOTHING was known besides the car matched the description and it seem the news and mayor are saying he violated procedure conducting a possible felony stop by himself which is exactly why there are procedures for this not to happen. Unless NEW info comes out theres nothing in this case that justifies deadly force of a fleeing suspect.

The news nor the mayor are investigators to the case. I'm not defending or condemning this specific case until more info is released. I'm merely going with what SCOTUS has ruled and why this may be justified if the officer is cleared.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)But I'm not saying that. I'm saying this ruling applies to all officers and gave all officers the same probable cause.
2.)A witness isn't needed for probable cause.
3.) Like I said, I don't know what the officer saw and he could be wrong for all I know. All I'm clarifying is that you don't need to see a weapon or even the crime being committed in some cases to have probable cause to use lethal force. Again, if you can articulate what caused you to have probable cause to shoot in the first place and it is deemed reasonable then it's justified.

4.) The news nor the mayor are investigators to the case.
5.) I'm not defending or condemning this specific case until more info is released. I'm merely going with what SCOTUS has ruled and why this may be justified if the officer is cleared.

1.) i know thats what you are saying and thats wrong, it does not
2.) good thing i didnt say that at all in anyway LMAO
3.) and this isnt one of them, going by what FACTS have been released so far and verified by pittsburgh PD theres no support for that in this case and Tennessee v. Garner doesnt change that. There will have to be some NEW fact presented to justify deadly force for this case
4.) didnt say they were i said they mentioned this officer on top of having what looks like a clearly bad shoot may have also violated procedure and going by what felony procedures are on avg that seems like accurate information.
5.) with the current and verified info released, theres nothing you presented from SCOTUS that justifies this

 

[Maccabee]

1.) i know thats what you are saying and thats wrong, it does not
2.) good thing i didnt say that at all in anyway LMAO
3.) and this isnt one of them, going by what FACTS have been released so far and verified by pittsburgh PD theres no support for that in this case and Tennessee v. Garner doesnt change that. There will have to be some NEW fact presented to justify deadly force for this case

Like I said, I agree. More info is need for the officer to be able to successfully use Tennessee v. Garner for his case.

4.) didnt say they were i said they mentioned this officer on top of having what looks like a clearly bad shoot may have also violated procedure and going by what felony procedures are on avg that seems like accurate information.
5.) with the current and verified info released, theres nothing you presented from SCOTUS that justifies this

Which wasn't my goal anyway.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)Like I said, I agree. More info is need for the officer to be able to successfully use Tennessee v. Garner for his case.
2.) Which wasn't my goal anyway.

1.) no it will never apply to this case because of reasons already mentioned

If you think im misunderstanding the ruling (which i admit i could factually be) by all means explain it.
the ruling was specifically based on a Tennessee statute. in that statue it talked about an officer witnessing a felony like burglary and then after telling the suspect they are under arrest if they flee and are a danger they can use basically any means necessary.

since this is PA, there was no witness to a felony or known felons involved, and nobody was told they are under arrest (since you know theres no known crimes yet to be arrested for) and the fleeing suspect didnt present any known deadly risk how does it apply? what am i missing? honest question?

2.) go then you should stop going with SCOTUS for this case until it actually applies and makes sense

 

[PTF]

The protesters are getting out of hand when it comes to blocking main highways. I would be tempted to drive through but not with a Mercedes.From what I understand the owner will be charged.

 

[Stymie_X]

Re: Pittsburgh protesters shut down highway for hours over fatal police shooting of unarmed teen Ant

Hey we agree.

 

[Stymie_X]

Re: Pittsburgh protesters shut down highway for hours over fatal police shooting of unarmed teen Ant

Ok, one little example for you and then adieu.
AFTER the fact the information that you did not know but which the cop did know in real time....is always pertinent.