Current Events > East Pittsburgh OIS of unarmed 17-y/o male

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/06/21/us/east-pittsburgh-police-fatal-shooting-antwon-rose/index.html

(CNN) Hours after being sworn in on the local force, a suburban Pittsburgh officer fatally shot an unarmed 17-year-old who ran when police stopped a vehicle that was suspected to be involved in an earlier shooting, authorities said.

The Allegheny County Medical Examiner's Office and a family attorney identified the victim as Antwon Rose II of Rankin. Antwon, an African-American, died at a hospital. He had been a passenger in the car, which authorities suspected of being involved in a shooting earlier Tuesday in a nearby community, Allegheny County police said Wednesday.

Protesters on Wednesday converged on East Pittsburgh, the borough southeast of Pittsburgh where the shooting occurred.

Sometime before 8:30 p.m. Tuesday, someone fired nine .40-caliber rounds at a 22-year-old in North Braddock borough, Allegheny County police said. The victim, who returned fire, was struck and taken to a hospital. He was treated and released.

Witnesses, including one who flagged down a police officer, described the vehicle in the shooting. Thirteen minutes later, an East Pittsburgh officer saw a silver Chevy Cruze, which matched the vehicle's description, police said. The officer stopped the car around 8:40 p.m.

The officer ordered the driver out of the car and onto the ground, police said. Antwon and another passenger "bolted" from the vehicle, and the East Pittsburgh officer opened fire, striking Antwon, Allegheny County police said.

Reggie Shuford, executive director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania, said Thursday it appears the East Pittsburgh officer "disregarded the basic humanity of this boy."

"Fleeing from a scene does not give law enforcement the right to indiscriminately shoot young boys or anyone. No one, especially children, should ever fear death at the hands of police. Lethal force should be an absolute last resort, not a first option," his statement said.

In a news conference, Allegheny County Police Superintendent Coleman McDonough said the shooting could be justified if the officer thought there was an imminent threat of death -- to the officer or others -- or if the fleeing suspect posed a threat. But, he said, the district attorney will ultimately decide if it was a justified use of force.

The officers involved weren't wearing bodycams, he said.

'All they did was run'

A witness to the shooting captured it on video that was posted on Facebook.

In the video, a police SUV is seen stopped in the middle of the street as another police car pulls up behind it. Two people are seen running from the Chevy Cruze. Within seconds three shots ring out. The runners appear to drop to the ground.

The woman recording the video says, "Why are they shooting at him?"

"All they did was run and they're shooting at them," the woman said.

Thoughts, CE?

This one is pretty close to home. I'm surprised there wasn't a topic about it already.

Also, I only pasted up to the first break. I'm on my phone.
---

From what is initially being said it seems like the cop is in the wrong but I will wait for an actual investigation.
---

fuck this cop but he will get off. they always do

enjoy your paid vacation you fuck

When you consider the situation, I don't think the cop acted unreasonably. In the moment there wasn't any way to know if the guy was armed or not.
---

No point in shooting him if he's trying to run.

just because a guy has a gun doesn't mean he's planning to use it on innocent people. that's an assumption of the cop's part. and assumptions that lead to murder are fucked up

Real question: would tranquilizer guns work? I feel like we have to have the technology to incapacitate people from the same distance as a bullet.
---

Contrary to what the police will tell you, running is not a crime.
---

BLAKUboy posted...

Contrary to what the police will tell you, running is not a crime.

Resisting arrest is.

So is disobeying police.
---

I don't know why so many people run. Your going to get caught
---

He shouldn't have run. Your first instinct being to book it when the police pull you over makes you look pretty suspicious. What was the cop supposed to think?
---

Zikten posted...

just because a guy has a gun doesn't mean he's planning to use it on innocent people. that's an assumption of the cop's part. and assumptions that lead to murder are fucked up

*cop doesn't act*

*suspect kills someone in a carjacking to aid his escape*

Same people: Why didn't the police do MORE?!
---

Shelhamer92 posted...

Real question: would tranquilizer guns work? I feel like we have to have the technology to incapacitate people from the same distance as a bullet.

Tranqs don't work like they do on tv. They're hard to use (need to be kept cool), can take awhile to work, and can be dangerous. People are very different sizes.
---

Considering the car that the cop pulled over matched one used by someone in an earlier shooting, and then the kid started to run away after being pulled over, it's a reasonable suspicion that the person was armed and dangerous.
---

@KrystalSNES

this guy deserved it did he?

the cops are more wrong than right about armed or unarmed. how many times do we see "unarmed person shot" in the news? I wouldn't trust a cop's judgement on if someone is armed. just by sheer odds, if a cop thinks someone is armed, I'm gonna think they probably aren't

Zikten posted...

the cops are more wrong than right about armed or unarmed. how many times do we see "unarmed person shot" in the news? I wouldn't trust a cop's judgement on if someone is armed. just by sheer odds, if a cop thinks someone is armed, I'm gonna think they probably aren't

Unarmed people are just as dangerous.
---

you can;t just murder a person cause you think they might attack someone, with no proof of that. might as well just shoot all people at all times then. they might attack someone!

Zikten posted...

you can;t just murder a person cause you think they might attack someone, with no proof of that. might as well just shoot all people at all times then. they might attack someone!

Of course not. I was just stating that treating unarmed people as not possibly dangerous is a way of getting hurt.
---

Sabram posted...

Considering the car that the cop pulled over matched one used by someone in an earlier shooting, and then the kid started to run away after being pulled over, it's a reasonable suspicion that the person was armed and dangerous.

Not only did it match the description; it was the vehicle that was used in a drive by about 20 minutes earlier. There was damage from the earlier victim returning fire. Two handguns were found in the vehicle.

This one isn't cut-and-dry. That's why I wanted to discuss it.

Tennessee v. Garner gives police the authority to use deadly force on a fleeing suspect if the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect is armed and is a danger to others or to the officer.

This comes down to whether he had that PC. In my opinion, he does; the vehicle matched the description of one used in a drive-by, had bullet holes in it, contained two firearms, and two suspects fled.

Would a reasonable person, knowing all of this, believe that suspect to be armed?

Now, think of that in light of the Brian Shaw shooting in New Kensington in November. Ofc. Shaw chased a suspect around a building with his taser out rather than his gun; he was subsequently murdered when that suspect spun on him and opened fire.

No incident happens in a vacuum; to say the officer is outright wrong is an oversimplification. To say the kid deserved to die, or anything along those lines, is another gross oversimplification.

This is the nature of the beast.

That officer's worst mistake was his first one; he didn't wait for backup before stopping the vehicle.
---

> were involved in a shooting earlier
> attempted to flee from police

100% fair next. And once again, BLM chooses the worst possible poster children they can - it's almost as if they know there's more to the story, and deliberately pick a story where their followers will blindly accept it as unjustified police brutality but their opponents will quickly realise there's more to the story and that the shooting was justified, purely for the sake of creating divisiveness. Oh wait, that's EXACTLY what BLM and other liberal movements are trying to achieve.
---

can we please not try to make a martyr out of this one? Anyone who actually reads the entire article will lose sympathy for him, and this is coming from a democrat. This isn't the hill to die on. The "young boy" was involved in a shooting that same day. He isn't a sparkling pillar of virtue in any sense of the word.
---

Why did he run?

FeatherCoin462 posted...

Why did he run?

because innocent people always try to book it when a cop pulls them over I guess
---