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

Yes. Many people are taking the video out of context. The camera is about 75 yards away so the sound won't get there for about .15 of a second at least after it is fired. That is significant for the first shot

 

Shooting and killing a fleeing unarmed child in the back is still what it is.
This country was build on real actual men, not such low life cowards as this cop.

#makeUSAgreatagain

 

Scroll back they have been cited over and over and over and over

 

Try making some sense.

 

Scroll back they have been cited over and over and over and over.

Don't have to, probable cause applies to all occupants. Prove the officer knew it was someone else in the vehicle.

I've answered every question now answer mine. If a dangerous fleeing criminal like one who has just committed a drive by shooting on a public street actually wounding one person and endangering any innocent law abiding citizens on that street tries to evade capture by running away are the police just supposed to let them run away?

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. I am dealing with the facts as we know them and the law as it exist.

It is glaring as usual.

Too many beers today or something your sentenses are making no sense and I have been quite clear and consistent in what I have said.

 

That was not a child, that was a young man who made some seriously bad choices that night and they got him killed.

 

They were in the car that had committed the shooting what don't you get here?

WHAT??? You don't even know why they were pulled over????? Go educate yourself and get back to me you aren't even worth dealing with.

 

DUH he was trying to evade it. And execution comes after on has submitted to the arrest, gone to trial and been sentenced. Unless you submit to the arrest all that is moot.

Are you just being obtuse.

No you don't you simple believe using specious inflammatory words refutes the facts and the law.

 

Society should.

 

No need for it to be high speed chase, more specious nonsense on your part.

And hyperbole.

No but are willing to post such bigoted and racist language bin order to accuse jurors of being such people and doing so when they do not go your way and reach a just verdict.

 

Should he fear a criminal who just committed a drive-by shooting on a public street wounding one person who has not been searched and who just made a quick move on him, yes. Should he fear that an escaping criminal who just committed a drive-by shooting on a public street wounding one person and endangering other citizens is a lethal threat to the community, yes.

If not why not.

 

I'm not scrolling back if you said it over and over and over again it should be easy for you to do it or tell me which post you did it in.

But I'm not going through 22 pages to find where you cited it if you can't side it now I don't think you ever could.

 

Do you lose literacy when someone asks you to describe something?

 

Run from the police because you don't have a driver's license? DOH!

When the police COMMAND you to 'halt', then you do exactly that -- whether you have your 'wallet' with you or not. You may have to go to the police station in custody, and you may have to undergo the process of proving who you are, and having the police verify your identity, etc. But the truly most-STOOPID thing you can do is to try to escape the police once they have COMMANDED you to halt. Anybody with any sense at all would know that. But, unfortunately, stupid people die needlessly every single day....

 

no I'm not picking through 22 pages from to prove your argument you prove it you can tell me which post you cited it in or you can cite it again.

If you can't you're lying.

you can't just randomly State "probable cause" ( a phrase I think you found as a buzzword and don't understand what it means) and expect to dodge the argument.

Explain what probable cause existed.

And as far as the officer not knowing things he's the one that pulled the trigger.

you haven't really answered any of my questions with real answers you just repeated buzzwords that you are unaware of the meaning.

I have answered this one.

what laws what facts you say your citing was over and over again but somehow you forgot how or forgot when or where I don't believe you.

You aren't dealing with facts.

if it was you wouldn't need to argue you would just point it out but it doesn't seem like you can.

You become temporarily illiterate I can explain that if you want to say it's because you've had too many beers I guess that's his logical a reason as any.

 

cars don't commit shootings people do.

So him being in the car isn't enough.

I know why they were pulled over their vehicle match the description of one used in a drive-by shooting and it had damage to the vehicle conducive with a drive-by shooting.

That doesn't explain probable cause do you even know what probable cause is? Or do you just keep seeing it because you heard it on Law and Order and you think it makes you sound like you know what you're talking about?

 

They had all the reason to pull these kids over the vehicle matched the description of a car used in a drive-by it had damage consistent with gunshots.

There will be little effort taken to prove that these two guys we're the ones involved in the shooting. When they investigate after the fact they can determine if someone has GSR on them it's really quite simple they can determine if the guns found in the car were used in the drive by based on caliber and ballistic matching.

So your questions will be answered with a preliminary investigation.

 

17 is still a child buddy.

 

You can get executed on the spot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_execution

Your whole argument of apprehension is just utterly moot. I sourced the meaning before.

Oh grow up and pick up a dictionary. You started using words, and I'm the only one explaining what they actually mean. At no point did you prove your point the way I did with links and sources. All you got is this left wing crying hippy attitude.

 

So what.

They could have been the victims by some gangsters for all the cops know.

 

The nonsense is coming from you, thinking someone was in a drive by is not a green light to open up. Sorry.

History of racist juries in this country, I can go from the Scottsboro boys to Tereance Cruthcher.

 

is that means the people inside can be considered armed and dangerous.

it doesn't matter what they could have been in matters what happened.

 

Actually that depends on what law you are talking about.

 

Sorry, but the police can not just shoot first and ask questions later. Let me change that when it is someone black they can and the way they do it is get 12 jurors like you.

 

I fail to see that as a reason to be so scared out of your mind that a trained individual uses this as a way to execute a child in his back.

What happened is that this coward of a cop shot an unarmed fleeing child in the back, and executed him like that, and you drag in what could have been happening all the time.