PA Officer Charged in Teen Shooting

His only justification would be if there was reasonable belief that the kid was a suspect in a violent crime, and considered a threat to the public.

Key wording being a threat to the public. I think depending on how good the ID on the car and suspects was he will be fine. Or should be anyways. They were armed and dangerous (had already fired rounds).

I'm just not sure on the threshold for "threat to public". I mean how imminent are we talking?
 
Again, do you understand why attributing negative qualities to a whole is the foundation of a flawed argument?
I just want to know if you get the basics.


BuT the whole is in question here. If the so called good ones don’t stand up against corruption what argument do u even have.

There isn’t some union of police publicly against this behavior. If anything they’re completely silent.

Perhaps you need to evaluate the basics.
 
That poor boy had an empty magazine on him when he was shot by the cop. Dearest me, how did that officer have time to plant that empty magazine on that innocent child after brutally slaying him merely for running to pray at church?
 
BuT the whole is in question here. If the so called good ones don’t stand up against corruption what argument do u even have.

There isn’t some union of police publicly against this behavior. If anything they’re completely silent.

Perhaps you need to evaluate the basics.
Like I said, you're simply not open to reason on the issue.
 
I'm just not sure on the threshold for "threat to public". I mean how imminent are we talking?

If he's a suspect in a shooting, I don't think it matters. I believe he's simply considered a high risk danger if they let him get away, and the cops can use deadly force as a means to protect the public, if he's trying to flee.
 
Like I said, you're simply not open to reason on the issue.


Okay so I’m asking YOU. Where are the good apples and why are they so silent. If there are so many of them (like you claim) where are they?

Please answer that question already. Where are they?
 
If the cop saw the kid's hands held no weapon and still shot him in the back as he ran then charges sound good to me.
This a tough moral dilemma. It sounds like the kid had just participated in a drive by shooting so it's hard to feel sorry for him, and cops do have a dangerous job and are largely underappreciated, but they are paid accordingly and get a lot of perks. They need to be held to the highest standard and held accountable when they make a mistake. Ultimately a jury will decide if this shooting was justified but immediately opening fire on a fleeing suspect seems like an overreaction.
 
If he's a suspect in a shooting, I don't think it matters. I believe he's simply considered a high risk danger if they let him get away, and the cops can use deadly force as a means to protect the public, if he's trying to flee.

Agreed. Hope it works out for him
 
So the police are now the judge and jury? Police are there to arrest alleged perpetrators. I literally cannot think of 1 acceptable scenario where it's ok for a cop to shoot someone in the back who is running away.

Cop would be wrong 100/100 times


That isn't what the law says so I guess you'll be one of the protesters calling for justice for the little thug.
 
Cop is being sacrificed to keep the population from rioting.
Kid was in a car that had bullet holes in it, used in a drive by and guns were found in the car. BAsed on all that it was justified.
 
I am a little surprised that he was charged, but at the same time, I am not. Ultimately, I doubt he gets convicted. This was the car from the shooting, the other kid that ran was charged with attempted murder. The kid that was shot had an empty gun magazine in his pocket and there were two guns in the car. But the cop did not know all of this until after he shot this kid. Could the argument be made that this kid was a threat to the community? Yes, i think that argument could be made. He certainly was not a threat to the officer. And these cases are tried under what the cop knew or suspected at the time of the incident. I think this was a messy shoot, and the argument I spoke of is in the weak side, as proving this kid was an immediate threat to the community would be difficult.

As always, my biggest issue with these incidents is that we have a person involved in a shooting, and he runs away. He is shot by police. The reaction by the protesters and the nationwide attention given to this story, and the outpouring of grief is not the same as if this kid was shot by someone other than a cop. There are thousands of kids and adults that have been shot this year and no one knows their name. There were no protests, no one blocking traffic, and little in the way of grief(except by the family) or anger. The people crying and shouting in the streets did not happen, but because this little thug was shot by an officer, we get to see pictures of him smiling and hearing what he wanted to be when he grew up. The thousands of people just like him that are shot or murdered apparently do not matter-their black lives did not matter because they were shot by other black people. So there is an obvious disconnect regarding the message of the protesters and their anger and grief. When 22 of the 34 murders in Pittsburgh for 2018 were black, and there were no protests for them, I don’t take the people that are suddenly concerned with black lives when the shooter is an officer.
 
I am a little surprised that he was charged, but at the same time, I am not. Ultimately, I doubt he gets convicted. This was the car from the shooting, the other kid that ran was charged with attempted murder. The kid that was shot had an empty gun magazine in his pocket and there were two guns in the car. But the cop did not know all of this until after he shot this kid. Could the argument be made that this kid was a threat to the community? Yes, i think that argument could be made. He certainly was not a threat to the officer. And these cases are tried under what the cop knew or suspected at the time of the incident. I think this was a messy shoot, and the argument I spoke of is in the weak side, as proving this kid was an immediate threat to the community would be difficult.

As always, my biggest issue with these incidents is that we have a person involved in a shooting, and he runs away. He is shot by police. The reaction by the protesters and the nationwide attention given to this story, and the outpouring of grief is not the same as if this kid was shot by someone other than a cop. There are thousands of kids and adults that have been shot this year and no one knows their name. There were no protests, no one blocking traffic, and little in the way of grief(except by the family) or anger. The people crying and shouting in the streets did not happen, but because this little thug was shot by an officer, we get to see pictures of him smiling and hearing what he wanted to be when he grew up. The thousands of people just like him that are shot or murdered apparently do not matter-their black lives did not matter because they were shot by other black people. So there is an obvious disconnect regarding the message of the protesters and their anger and grief. When 22 of the 34 murders in Pittsburgh for 2018 were black, and there were no protests for them, I don’t take the people that are suddenly concerned with black lives when the shooter is an officer.
Good post. Although I would point out that among the things the officer couldn't know was whether the runner was a threat. Turn and fire happens.

ETA, also, there have only been 34 murders in Pittsburgh so far?
 
Another thread. Another shameful KONG beating with him taking yet another L.
 
I just spent the last 30 minutes reading articles about killer Plumbers. There's a few really bad cases.
 
I don't think it is.
Take any profession... plumbing... and make the nation conscious largely of negative stories. Then the public perception will be swayed towards people who opine "A plumber fucked up? Plumbers gonna plumb."

It's sloppy thinking.

I agree. If only people would also stop doing it with race also.
 
I just spent the last 30 minutes reading articles about killer Plumbers. There's a few really bad cases.

A few of those stories clogged up my home screen...
:)
 
Aww, can't shoot people in the back, take your ball and go home.

Not saying that this is justified as I haven’t really even looked into it tbh, but that isn’t always the case. If it is believed that the offender is an immediate threat to society shooting in the back can be justified.

A good example would’ve been had the Vegas shooter come out of the hotel and ran the cops would’ve totally been justified in shooting him in the back because it’s easy to articulate how he would be a danger to the public.
 
I agree. If only people would also stop doing it with race also.
4TqcQYG.jpg
 
It seems like the wrong cases get charged, with the totality of circumstances this one looks justified in my uneducated opinion.
 
Too many people get giddy over cops getting charged, they're still acquitted 99.9% of the time.
 
Back
Top