17-year-old Antwon Rose was fleeing and unarmed when police in East Pittsburgh shot him

So if you don't have your wallet when they ask you for your drivers license, watch out because you might catch a bullet.

 

Well when you REFUSE to be apprehended and try escape apprehension and refuse to be arrested how can you be put on trial?

 

Then scroll back and read the many many many times the law has been cited and learn the difference between apprehension and execution.

 

They were suspected and he wasn't in a high speed chase.

This guy has been charged with criminal homicide, but I know you know more than the police and the DA. You have to be the top shithouse lawyer on this forum.

 

Point remains, the kid of executed and not apprehended. Use a dictionary.
And a cop can just shoot the legs and make the kid stop running, in order to apprehend.
But the thug with a badge just executed him. He aint mentally sane. Obviously.

 

Refuted several times.

Nope, when an officer fires it is at the biggest target they don't nor are they required to to try and must wound them. How absurd.

I no that you need to try an inflame the issues misusing terms like "execute" but it gets you nowhere. Try having a reasoned debate.

 

Suspected with probable cause and who said it was a high speed chase?

I know more the reality and that is without charging him the city faces riots and burnings and lootings.

 

Are you a lawyer?

 

It wasn't that's the point.

Any excuse will do, sorry you don't get to play executioner because you feel like it.

I am not naive enough to think he will actually be found guilty, because they will get 12 folks who think like you that it's ok to shoot and kill black teenage boys.

 

You wrote "Now learn the difference between execution and apprehension."
And I sourced you that there was no apprehension. He simply got killed on the spot,.. that's an execution.

So they just execute people instead of apprehend them.

I just call it as it is. Don't go lefty cry baby on me.

 

What law has been sighted over and over again where did it come from?

Is it really the law or is it just what you think should be the law where is it written down which Congress voted to pass it do you know anything about what you're talking about.

 

if you know for a fact but that is the crime that he committed and can prove it you better speak up.

If only you can say is that he was in the car you can't prove anything.

repeating horseshit doesn't make it any less horseshit.

Articulate the probable cause if you can't do that then you don't know that there is any.

okay so show me that they believed he was armed.

I graduated in 2013.

what did you cite? What was your source?

but shooting him in the back without I'm presenting a clear and immediate threat to anyone is still not enough to justify lethal Force.

What if scenarios will never fly in court.

I claimed no such thing.

 

based on what law Please cite it.

Did they know that he pulled the trigger? If so how did they know and show me evidence.

I'm not a prosecuting attorney and I'm asking questions you can't answer or refuse to answer.

Don't be like a leftist don't assume just because the people involved or a police officer and as suspected Criminal that one of them is in the right because of who they are. That's exactly what the left does and you're being just like them.

in this particular case I'm not seeing any lies of omission. Yes there were guns in the car but not in his hand as I went through this with gun control advocates a gun sitting on a car seat is of no danger to anyone. Rose did not have a gun in his hand so he didn't present and immediate and clear threat to anyone when he was running away.

Now you tend to waffle between saying yes he did without a weapon and moving away from the only other people there to my knowledge and that it's also legal to shoot people when they're running away from you.

I find it odd that you're waffling on this. If you're allowed to just shoot people for running away from you it doesn't matter if he present to do clear and immediate threat to anybody because you can shoot him for running away from you.

So because your position is inconsistent I'm suspicious of it. I don't think you know what the law is you can't cite it.

 

Explain how that is probable cause and you can't use things found after the fact because they were known.

 

Interesting so he wasn't really running away he was getting out of the car but that's all we really know.

 

Show me the law that says lethal Force is acceptable as a method to subdue someone from fleeing the police on foot.

 

Two guys ran and there were two guns in the car.

 

I don't think it's legal to shoot someone that is running away.

I believe the threshold for lethal force is an immediate threat to the officer or an innocent third party.

That being said somebody else had presented some information stating the suspect we're not fleeing they were just getting out of the car.

 

there are guns in lots of cars in the US. Totally fine and normal.

 

The account I just read said that the two passengers bolted from the car as the officers were getting the driver out. These officers were responding to a shots fired call, everyone in that car was dangerous and posed a threat till they were in custody for questioning. .40 cal shells from the scene were fired from a .40 cal pistol found under the back seat of the car these young men were in. The driver claims to have been a jitney driver and yet it was a drive by shooting, right car right gun and therefore right perps.

I think the shooting was ill advised but not criminal. Criminals were the people from the car. This is going to be interesting as it plays out.

 

Not so many cars with the rear window shot out, that perfectly matches the eyewitness description of a car just used in a driveby attempted murder, IN ADDITION to guns in them....you left those "little details" out, for some reason.

 

One of these was used at the scene of the earlier shooting.

 

The other guy who ran is being charged in the driveby attempted murder...which is OBVIOUSLY what Rose as running to avoid...except in "Everything is Racism, No Common Sense, Leftworld."

 

Could have been self defense. Totally fine.

 

All I can say is that I'm glad I'm not going to be on that jury