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

No its a fact they don't have to be track stars and they aren't require to be able to run down all suspects especially you males else explain why we allow women who can't become police officers?
Again how about you just don't try to flee apprehension?

 

Does a city have a choice these days in such circumstances?

Now the grand jury will do its job.

 

Seems like a lot of 20/20 hindsight in that reasoning.

 

Well I don't know the circumstances surrounding this incident. But it's going to be difficult to prove you were justified in shooting somebody who was running away from you.

 

We should let the grand jury do its job but yes cities do have a choice. There is a such thing as justifiable homicide but not all homicides are and this one just might not be.

 

It will be interesting to see the prosecution try to make that case.

 

You left out the "who the police had probable cause the they had just engaged in an attempted murder on a public street hitting one person and endangering the public keeping the public in danger if he escapes apprehension."

 

I really think the prosecution has a good chance of getting a guilty verdict. I'm not saying it's impossible I'm just saying it's difficult to justify shooting someone in the back.

 

I was not talking about the drive-by shooting that the people in the car were involved in. I was talking about the police officer who shot a man in the back.

There are cases where that is justifiable but the circumstances are extremely narrow.

Let's put it this way my hopes aren't up that the police officer doesn't face prison for this.

I know that every time some dumbass gets shot by the police there is all this hoopla about how the police are racist. That doesn't mean that this sort of thing never happens. It certainly doesn't mean that every instance where a police officer shoots a person is automatically not guilty of anything because people of my particular political persuasion say so.

It is going to be hard to prove that an unarmed man running away from the police is justifiable homicide. The circumstances that would make it Justified are very narrow.

 

Not when there is extreme probable cause they were just engaged in an attempted murder on a public street endangering the public and were trying to escape capture. This was an active shooter situation. Were they just supposed to let him get away?

 

Yes who was in a car that had just committed an attempted murder in a drive by shooting wounding one person and endangering the public. Were they just supposed to let the perpetrators get away?

When was the last time a person was shot by the police because the police were racist?

Why are you leaving out the justification in your statement? Insert and try again.

 

escaping capture is not a justification for deadly force

I'm not so sure that's true and that's something is Court will have to decide don't be a leftist let's let the court do their job and make their decision.

No, they are supposed to apprehend him. You can't just gun down anyone that evades arrest.

 

was mr. Rose a perpetrator if so prove it.

Or we could just let the courts do it.

will they blame Sandra Bland's death on racist police and clearly she committed suicide they blamed Tamir rice is death on racist police and clearly he was pointing a gun at people.

This person did not commit suicide he was unarmed the circumstances are different.

Well I don't know of any justifications for shooting a man in the back that is unarmed and running away from you. Just because I don't know of any doesn't mean there aren't any and I was leaving room for that to be the case.

I'm going to reserve judgement because that is the job of our justice system.

 

No matter what the policemen's story is, we can see what happened from the video. Antwon was shot while running away. He didn't pose any danger to anybody.

 

Probable cause and in order for the courts to do that he has to submit himself to the arrest, he choose to try and get away.

But they weren't and that's about the closest you could even come.

Want to stay alive

Don't commit drive by shootings.
Submit to the arrest if you do.
DON'T RUN and try to get away.

He is a threat to the public and prove they knew he was unarmed.

PROBABLE CAUSE, law enforcement is licensed to use lethal force for probable cause of violent crimes in order to protect our communities from murderous thugs like these.

Again was he just supposed to let him get away after having just been involved in an attempted murder in a drive-by shooting endangering the public?

 

People who engage in attempted murder in a drive-by shooting wounding one person are a lethal threat to the community. The police HAVE to take them into custody or take them down to prevent their escape.

Why do you want these people out on the street?

 

If he presents a dangerous threat to the public and is fleeing capture it certainly is.

OK tell these thugs DON'T RUN then.

If you're getting away they can. Where on earth do you get the notion that violent criminals can just run away and the police have to stand there with their thumbs up their arse's?

 

I don't think he was separated from the car when the first shots were fired. You have to take into account distance when you are matching up sounds to what you see.

 

You have to show that he was presenting a clear and immediate threat to an officer or an innocent third party. Not a perceived threat to society but a clear and immediate threat to an actual existing third party.

Can you do that yes or no? If no we shall let the courts decide

And you mentioned probable cause now probable cause isn't some subjective undefined thing it has a very clear meaning in law.

So you said the officer has probable cause then you should be able to articulate it clearly and concisely.

If you cannot you don't know whether or not there was probable cause chances are you don't know because you weren't there.

 

It depends on the crime you committed whether or not fleeing warrants lethal Force did they know for a fact that he fired a gun it's easy to find out this is why we have investigators particularly at the morgue they can find out if he fired a gun. Even then with that information only you can't prove that he was attempting to kill somebody you can only prove that he was firing a gun that would be Reckless and if the cop shot him in the back while he was recklessly firing a gun that would be a circumstance where it is justifiable because it presents a clear and imminent threat to innocent third parties.

But he didn't have a gun in his hand he was fleeing we don't know why he was in that car and you can't jump to conclusions. So I still don't know how the officer is going to get away scot-free on this it's going to be difficult.

it is a good thing you are not a police officer you would not last a day I doubt you would make it through three days in the Academy.

You cannot just go running around shooting people because they're running away from you. That's murder.

no they can't. That's murder.

where do you get that I came up with that notion you're not supposed to stand there with a thumb up there ass pursue that's why we spend billions of dollars on police motor pool and training. They can run after him they don't even need to have a car.

You can't just run around shooting people in the back that run away from you that's murder.

 

do video cameras record the totality of the circumstances? If so in case of video of the act in progress we can just do away with criminal justice as an apparatus?

it made me very well be that that's what happened but it may just appear that way to you based on the myopic view of video video cameras do not record of the circumstances this is why we have court systems the officer has been charged with criminal homicide.

He isn't going anywhere the FBI know where he is they have his fingerprints all the stuff happened before he ever put on a badge and he has been a police officer for 7 years. So the courts can take their time.

 

It would be ideal if you didn't try and flee apprehension but fleeing apprehension does not necessitate lethal Force.

You can say that it does all f****** day long but there's no law or code that says fleeing apprehension merits lethal Force. So until you can show me in the penal code where it says fleeing apprehension warrants lethal Force you have no argument.

If you think it should that's a different story and we can have that conversation. But the law is Crystal f****** clear about this and you are wrong.

 

Do you have proof that Antwon participated in a drive by shooting?

 

No, we should not do away with the criminal justice system.
The policemen said he was in fear for his life, didn't he? From someone who was running away from him. Really?

 

So why would you convict a man based on a video?

So we should do away with our justice system and lock up people based on video?