Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
In The Zone

Another killing at the hands of the Police

Recommended Posts

Just now, Ilov80s said:

I would agree for the most part. I do think there are details that could change my mind. Like if the passengers of the car were just involved in a a home and executed a family or fired 50 shots into a neighborhood home and the cops were 100% certain it was the same car, I could understand feeling the need to shoot due to the extreme danger of the situation. In almost all situations though, shooting a fleeing suspect is awful. 

im friends with many cops...i know that none of them would pull a trigger on a person running away ....if the kid was firing at them as he ran yes...shoot him....but that kid was just hauling ### outa there...the cop who pulled the trigger panicked and it cost that young boy his life ...cops arent judges....they dont get to find a kid guilty based on a call over the radio about some shooting somewhere...they arrest and detain unless threatened...let the courts decide what happened prior  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Yenrub said:

I read somewhere that 2 guns were found in the car. None on the person who was running away and was shot

The earlier shooting was an exchange of gunfire. According to police, the car had the back windows shot out. One cop is handcuffing the driver while the other 2 take off.

To be clear, I'm all for dash cams and body cams and no excuse to shoot somebody in the back. But in that situation, the cops assume somebody is armed. They know there were guns in the car. They don't know the alleged gunmen left them there. The situation was ripe for somebody to panic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, PinkydaPimp said:

running from the cops is a death sentence? 

 It raises the chances dramatically versus staying put and doing what you're told. 

That's completely independent from whether or not the cop should have shot (IMO he clearly should not have).

Edited by Andy Dufresne
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cop should be tried convicted and put to death.  Instead he'll be back on the force in 6 weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Andy Dufresne said:

 It raises the chances dramatically versus staying put and doing what you're told. 

That's completely independent from whether or not the cop should have shot (IMO he clearly should not have).

c`mon....how many times have people been shot just sitting in their cars ? Multiple ...bottom line is if the cop is scared or inexperienced ...or just an Ahole there`s a good chance it doesnt matter what you`re doing 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, bucksoh said:

Cop should be tried convicted and put to death.  Instead he'll be back on the force in 6 weeks.

We’ll just have to keep you out of the investigation then. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BustedKnuckles said:

c`mon....how many times have people been shot just sitting in their cars ? Multiple ...bottom line is if the cop is scared or inexperienced ...or just an Ahole there`s a good chance it doesnt matter what you`re doing 

I don't know. How many?

And even given that it has happened, you really think it's safer to run than sit there?

Edited by Andy Dufresne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Andy Dufresne said:

Stop...running...from...cops.

Exactly, all of these people up in arms but no one questioning why he ran. No they shouldn't have shot him if he was running away, but I guess all these people just think it's normal to run from cops if you haven't done anything.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Andy Dufresne said:

I don't know. How many?

And even given that it has happened, you really think it's safer to run than sit there?

Well we know they had guns in the car now so given the videos that are out there of unarmed people being shot or Orlando Castille informing the officers he has a legal weapon in the car, etc. I can imagine being nervous about getting pulled at night with a gun in the car and how a cop might overreact. I could see how someone might think the least threatening thing I could do is run away. If I run away I would be getting away from my guns and showing that I am of not threat to the officer. I am not saying it's perfectly logical but we are talking teenagers and a high stress situation. That's not a recipe for sound decision making. 

The issue of what these guys did prior, who they were shooting at, etc. is important but like another poster said, the cops are not the judge or jury. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Andy Dufresne said:

 It raises the chances dramatically versus staying put and doing what you're told. 

Like, legally? It seems like you are saying yes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, msommer said:

Like, legally? It seems like you are saying yes?

I explicitly said that the cop should not have fired.

You guys really need to debate one issue at a time.

Edited by Andy Dufresne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Andy Dufresne said:

 It raises the chances dramatically versus staying put and doing what you're told. 

That's completely independent from whether or not the cop should have shot (IMO he clearly should not have).

 

 

The problem here with reconciling "You shouldn't run from the cops" and "Cops shouldn't shoot unarmed people in the back" is that the guy who runs from the cops is dead and the cop who shoots the unarmed guy running in the other direction will not face any legal repercussions at all.  

That's like my two children getting into a fight and breaking something in the house.  I tell them both that they shouldn't fight with each other.  Then I take the first kid and break his arm. If I just send the second kid to play Nintendo with a bowl of ice cream, the second kid isn't going to have much incentive for the "you shouldn't have done that" to sink in. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, AhrnCityPahnder said:

The problem here with reconciling "You shouldn't run from the cops" and "Cops shouldn't shoot unarmed people in the back" is that the guy who runs from the cops is dead and the cop who shoots the unarmed guy running in the other direction will not face any legal repercussions at all.  

That's like my two children getting into a fight and breaking something in the house.  I tell them both that they shouldn't fight with each other.  Then I take the first kid and break his arm. If I just send the second kid to play Nintendo with a bowl of ice cream, the second kid isn't going to have much incentive for the "you shouldn't have done that" to sink in. 

I'm sorry. I understood none of that.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, AhrnCityPahnder said:

 

 

The problem here with reconciling "You shouldn't run from the cops" and "Cops shouldn't shoot unarmed people in the back" is that the guy who runs from the cops is dead and the cop who shoots the unarmed guy running in the other direction will not face any legal repercussions at all.  

That's like my two children getting into a fight and breaking something in the house.  I tell them both that they shouldn't fight with each other.  Then I take the first kid and break his arm. If I just send the second kid to play Nintendo with a bowl of ice cream, the second kid isn't going to have much incentive for the "you shouldn't have done that" to sink in. 

What kind of ice cream?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Andy Dufresne said:

I'm sorry. I understood none of that.

He just means that the consequences of the 2 actions are extremely disproportionate. A cop shoots a fleeing suspect, the suspect is dead and most likely the officer will not face any legal consequences. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Andy Dufresne said:

I'm sorry. I understood none of that.

I always thought the tunnel behind the Rita Hayworth poster was pretty smart.

Now it's like I don't know you at all

:P 

Edited by msommer
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like for two things to stop happening.

1. Cops unnecessarily shooting people

2. People getting in situations that increases the possibility of getting unnecessarily shot

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Andy Dufresne said:

I would like for two things to stop happening.

1. Cops unnecessarily shooting people

2. People getting in situations that increases the possibility of getting unnecessarily shot

 

Maybe if number 1 happens, number 2 would decrease?  :shrug:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also a piece of thought: the incentive to engage during a police "confrontation"

For the suspect, engaging the officer with potentially deadly force has 2 most likely consequences- death or a lengthy prison stint

For the officer, engaging the suspect with potentially deadly fore has 2 most likely consequences- death or not having charges filed against you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Andy Dufresne said:

I'm sorry. I understood none of that.


I'll try to make this more concise:  When there is an unarmed person running away from the police and a cop shoot him in the back, that cop should be prosecuted for manslaughter every. single. time.    That will yield positive results for your wishlist item #1 above. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, PinkydaPimp said:

Maybe if number 1 happens, number 2 would decrease?  :shrug:

Sure. I can absolutely agree with thar. And also if #2 happens then #1 would decrease.

Cops aren't superheroes with "spidey" sense. They're humans that are doing a job that sometimes relies on cutting through fear to make a proper judgement call. People on the receiving end of that call can do things that make that call easier or harder. 

Conversely, I'm well aware that the prejudices that SOME cops bring to their judgements definitely cloud said judgements.

I completely agree that this is a two way street.

Edited by Andy Dufresne
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, AhrnCityPahnder said:


I'll try to make this more concise:  When there is an unarmed person running away from the police and a cop shoot him in the back, that cop should be prosecuted for manslaughter every. single. time.    That will yield positive results for your wishlist item #1 above. 

Every time? There must be some scenarios you can imagine where a cop would need to stop someone from getting away.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Ilov80s said:

Has there been more info on whether the kid or any of the people in the car actually were involved in the earlier shooting? 

 

https://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2018/06/21/antwon-rose-east-pittsburgh-shooting-jitney-driver/

PITTSBURGH (KDKA) —

The man who was driving 17-year-old Antwon Rose Jr. and one other suspect before a confrontation with police in East Pittsburgh Tuesday night was a jitney driver who had nothing to do with a shooting that occurred minutes before an officer shot and killed Rose.

That’s according to sources who talked to KDKA-TV’s Jon Delano on condition of anonymity.

The source described the jitney driver as “very cooperative with investigators,” who questioned him and eventually released him without charging him. The source says he was not charged because the driver was nothing more than a hired ride for Rose and a second, as-yet unidentified man who was with Rose in the back seat of the jitney moments before the confrontation with police.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, AhrnCityPahnder said:

When there is an unarmed person running away from the police and a cop shoot him in the back, that cop should be prosecuted for manslaughter every. single. time.  

The Supreme Court and even the law in Pennsylvania disagrees with you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Johnny Rock said:

The Supreme Court and even the law in Pennsylvania disagrees with you. 

Yep, every cop knows this.  Repeat after me:  "I feared for my life".   It doesn't matter what else.  

"I feared for my life" is a free pass to shoot whoever they want.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, AhrnCityPahnder said:

Yep, every cop knows this.  Repeat after me:  "I feared for my life".   It doesn't matter what else.  

"I feared for my life" is a free pass to shoot whoever they want.  

Do you really believe this cop was just itching to kill someone while on duty and took advantage of the first situation that he could justify?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Johnny Rock said:

Do you really believe this cop was just itching to kill someone while on duty and took advantage of the first situation that he could justify?

i dont think he meant that cops shoot people because they know they can get away with it...i think he means in the end its a fail proof defense to beat a bad kill

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Johnny Rock said:

Do you really believe this cop was just itching to kill someone while on duty and took advantage of the first situation that he could justify?

No. I believe the officer reacted out of fear, maybe lack of training. That deserves a consequence more than that is typically given in these cases. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

No. I believe the officer reacted out of fear, maybe lack of training. That deserves a consequence more than that is typically given in these cases. 

You might not believe it but killing someone will take a severe toll on the officer too. Of course nothing like the pain of losing a child, but still a tremendous burden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Johnny Rock said:

You might not believe it but killing someone will take a severe toll on the officer too. Of course nothing like the pain of losing a child, but still a tremendous burden.

I believe it. I believe everything you say. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's such a tough topic, and really makes me sad. I am very much a pacifist and the thought of innocent victims gunned down by the jack-booted forces of the state makes my stomach turn.

But I also realize that life isn't roses and ponies and so much terrible stuff goes on out there. We, as a society, put law enforcement officers in such tough situations, with so little margin for error in any direction.

I honestly don't know what the "right" thing to do is in many circumstances. So much gray area.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, TakiToki said:

It's such a tough topic, and really makes me sad. I am very much a pacifist and the thought of innocent victims gunned down by the jack-booted forces of the state makes my stomach turn.

But I also realize that life isn't roses and ponies and so much terrible stuff goes on out there. We, as a society, put law enforcement officers in such tough situations, with so little margin for error in any direction.

I honestly don't know what the "right" thing to do is in many circumstances. So much gray area.

That seems like a very reasonable and well thought out response. Are those allowed in a thread like this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, AhrnCityPahnder said:

Yep, every cop knows this.  Repeat after me:  "I feared for my life".   It doesn't matter what else.  

"I feared for my life" is a free pass to shoot whoever they want.  

There are services that police academies and CE courses for police offices that drill it into their heads the SCOTUS case that covers them. They get told all they need to say is that they feared for their own safety. It's a literal get out of jail free card, like literally literal.

Edited by Dedfin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, DallasDMac said:

That seems like a very reasonable and well thought out response. Are those allowed in a thread like this?

No. I reported him.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Dedfin said:

There are services that police academies and CE courses for police offices that drill it into their heads the SCOTUS case that covers them. They get told all they need to say is that they feared for their own safety. It's a literal get out of jail free card, like literally literal.

Reminds me of Trump talking about coached up immigrants. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Johnny Rock said:

Do you really believe this cop was just itching to kill someone while on duty and took advantage of the first situation that he could justify?

No.

 

I believe questionable screening practices and lack of sufficient training in general by SOME police departments, paired with power tripping personality traits and bad decisions by SOME cops lead to things like this.   Situations that would leave any other person on in this country in handcuffs. And then whether its true or not, all that has to be said by the officer is  "I feared for my life" and all is peachy and he did nothing wrong.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Johnny Rock said:

You might not believe it but killing someone will take a severe toll on the officer too. Of course nothing like the pain of losing a child, but still a tremendous burden.

I do believe you here, too.  But as the facts in  this Rose case  are still murky...  Let  me ask you a question about something  a hypothetical  scenario:

 

A suspect is pulled over because his auto matches a car wanted in a shooting.  Someone gets out of the car and ignores the officers commands to get on the ground and he sprints away from the officer.  The officer shoots him in the back.  The suspect was unarmed, and deep down the officer did it out of panic or anger or whatever else, but not because he was facing an immediate and deadly threat. This officer did not wake  up planning to kill someone that day and I'd sure hope there is regret in his actions, let's say that's the case. 

Should there be any legal repercussions?  Should there even be any change in his job status?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/22/2018 at 0:56 PM, Ilov80s said:

So the driver had nothing to do with the shooting- did Rose?

He was in the car but didn't do the shooting.  So Rose was unarmed, wasn't the shooter earlier, had his back turned, was running away, and Officer Rosfeld's story has already changed. 

 

 

Officer charged with Criminal Homicide.   I doubt it sticks, but good.  

http://www.post-gazette.com/local/region/2018/06/27/Charges-filed-police-officer-Antwon-Rose-Michael-rosfeld-shooting-death-east-pittsburgh/stories/201806270113

Police say officer charged in Antwon Rose death gave conflicting accounts of shooting
June 27, 2018 7:47 AM


By Paula Reed Ward and Shelly Bradbury / Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
The East Pittsburgh police officer who shot and killed 17-year-old Antwon Rose II has been charged with criminal homicide, and according to a police affidavit the unarmed teenager was shot three times, once in the back.

Officer Michael Rosfeld, 30, of Penn Hills, is charged with a single count of homicide, according to court documents.

Antwon was in the car June 19 during a drive-by shooting in North Braddock that preceded the stop in which he was fatally shot, but did not fire a weapon, according to the complaint.

Surveillance footage from the incident, as well as witness accounts, revealed that a second teen in the car, Zaijuan Hester, fired a .40 caliber handgun from the backseat of the car.


Antwon, seated in the front passenger seat, never opened the car’s window, according to the complaint.

Officer Rosfeld turned himself in at 6:30 a.m. Wednesday in City Court in Downtown Pittsburgh.

He was arraigned at 7:54 a.m. and granted an unsecured $250,000 bond by District Judge Regis Charles Welsh. The officer posted the bond. 

District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala Jr.'s spokesman said Wednesday he believes the magisterial district judge should not have granted the officer bail.

 

Here is the criminal complaint filed against Michael Rosfeld:

 
"On the issue of bail, our office argued vigorously against the setting of bail citing both the Pennsylvania State Constitution and statute which indicates that persons charged with a crime that can result in life in prison are not entitled to bail," Mike Manko said in a statement. "We believe the Magisterial District Judge’s ruling on bail was improper but we do not plan on contesting it at this time."

Officer Rosfeld is accused of killing Antwon, who was in a car stopped in East Pittsburgh 13 minutes after the drive-by shooting in North Braddock. The vehicle had bullet holes and matched a description of the vehicle involved in the drive-by, which left a 22-year-old with a gunshot wound to the stomach, from which he is recovering.

Antwon and Zaijuan fled from the car, and Antwon was shot as he ran away. Zaijuan was arrested Monday night in the Hill District. He is charged as an adult with attempted homicide and other charges stemming from the North Braddock shooting. The jitney driver was released after questioning by police the night of the shooting.

Police have said that Antwon was not armed, but had an empty clip in his pocket as he fled. Two guns were found in the vehicle from which he fled.

According to Mr. Zappala, Antwon had no role in the North Braddock shooting.

“(Zaijuan Hester) is the shooter in North Braddock,” he said. “By all accounts, Mr. Rose never did anything in furtherance of the crimes in North Braddock."

During the traffic stop in East Pittsburgh, Antwon was shot three times: on the right side of his face, in his right elbow and in his mid-back, to the right of his spine, according to a criminal complaint. The wound to the back was fatal.

Officer Rosfeld gave investigators conflicting accounts of the shooting, according to the criminal complaint. He initially said he saw Antwon run from the car and that the teenager’s hand “turned toward him” and he saw a dark object he thought was a gun, prompting him to step forward and fire.

However, when Officer Rosfeld went over the incident a second time with detectives, he did not say he saw a gun in Antwon’s hand.

“When confronted with this inconsistency, Rosfeld stated he saw something in the passenger’s hand but was not sure what it was,” the complaint reads. “In addition, Officer Rosfeld stated that he was not certain if the individual who had his arm pointed at him was still pointing at him when he fired the shots.”

During the press conference, Mr. Zappala said, "According to witnesses, Rose shows his hands, turns and runs."

The jitney driver told police he was driving in the Hawkins Village housing complex where he bumped into Antwon, who lived there, and a second teenager he didn’t recognize. The two boys asked him for a jitney to Grandview Avenue in East Pittsburgh, and the driver agreed, according to the criminal complaint.

On the way, they passed a market in North Braddock, the jitney driver told police. He heard the teenager in the back — later identified by police as Zaijuan — say, “Is that him?” and then heard gunfire from the backseat, the jitney said.

Video surveillance from the scene at the intersection of Baldridge Avenue and Jones Avenue shows the car’s back window go down and someone in a dark T-shirt firing out the window at about 8:28 p.m., according to the complaint. Thomas Cole Jr., 22, was shot in the abdomen.

A second man in a red shirt on the street pulled out a gun and shot back at the car, according to the complaint. Officers later found nine spent .40-caliber casings along the car’s path and four spent .45-caliber casings near the victim.

The jitney drove away and continued to Grandview Avenue, where he was pulled over by Officer Rosfeld. The jitney driver said Officer Rosfeld told him to turn off the car and throw the keys out the window, which he did. Officer Rosfeld then told him to get on the ground and he did so.

At that point, the jitney driver said he heard Officer Rosfeld give “commands to the passengers.” He said he saw the teenagers’ feet as they exited the car, and saw their feet turn to run. He then heard gunshots.

The driver stayed on the ground until he was handcuffed and put in a patrol car. He was released after police questioned him and he consented to a gunshot residue test. The driver identified Zaijuan as the boy who was with Antwon by picking him out of a photo array, according to the complaint.

Investigators recovered two weapons from under the front passenger seat of the jitney — a .40 caliber Glock pistol and a 9mm Glock pistol.

Investigators determined the .40 caliber Glock had been stolen in 2016 from an owner in Lower Burrell, who reported it was stolen from his truck along with four magazines. Investigators used ballistic evidence to confirm the .40 caliber casings found at the scene of the drive-by shooting were fired from the stolen Glock.

At Wednesday’s news conference, Mr. Zappala said both guns found in the jitney vehicle were stolen and said the .40-caliber pistol goes back to "several other crimes."

A preliminary hearing for Officer Rosfeld has been scheduled for July 6.

Antwon’s shooting has sparked days of protests in which people have blocked the Parkway East and Route 30 and marched on the Allegheny County Courthouse demanding charges.

Officer Rosfeld's attorney, Patrick Thomassey, declined to discuss the specifics of the case but said they have confidence in the court system.

"The process is going to work," he said. "We’re going to go through the process, and we’ll see."

 
Officer Rosfeld, who was placed on leave following the shooting, was hired by East Pittsburgh in mid-May and officially sworn into the job a few hours before the shooting.

He previously worked for the University of Pittsburgh for five years and before that was a part-time police officer in Harmar and Oakmont.

District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala Jr. has scheduled a media briefing on the charges for 11 a.m.

State and local officials joined local activists in calling for the DA to file charges in the case.

Antwon's family attorney was notified Tuesday evening by the DA's Office that charges against the officer would be filed Wednesday morning.

Philadelphia attorney S. Lee Merritt said the news left him with "guarded optimism" but called the filing of the single count of criminal homicide "a first step on a long, long way to what we see as justice — which is conviction and proper sentencing."

He said he notified Antwon's parents last night of the development. The mom's reaction: "They were obviously happy but — and I don't want them to appear ungrateful — but [they] are angry — angry that this man ever was allowed to be a police officer." 

He said he and the family will be meeting today with someone from the DA's Office and he is hoping to get more details on Officer Rosfeld’s departure from the Pitt police department and his record on campus during his time there.

Mr. Merritt said the DA's Office has assured him that someone will remain in contact with the family through the trial process.

Meanwhile, Mr. Merritt is moving forward with a federal law suit on the family's behalf.

"We will run a parallel investigation and litigation and we will defer [until the conclusion of the criminal proceedings] only if the court asks us to," he said. He said the lawsuit has been drafted and he expects it to be filed within a week or so.

East Pittsburgh officials did not return calls or emails Wednesday morning.

Mr. Merritt said he isn't concerned about the impact of felony assault charges having been filed Wednesday against the teen who was with Antwon when Antwon was shot to death.

He said the shooting of Antwon should be viewed "in a vacuum."

"We must necessarily look at the police encounter in a vacuum ... Not in view of what may or may not have occurred prior to [the taking of] Antwon's life," he commented.

And he noted that Antwon may not have been criminally involved in the drive-by. "We know at least one person — the driver — has been released without criminal charges being filed. So, you can be present and not be guilty of the crime itself. If it's true of the driver then it certainly can be true for Antwon, as well," Mr. Merritt saidl

Staff writer Karen Kane contributed.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/23/2018 at 11:17 AM, AhrnCityPahnder said:

I do believe you here, too.  But as the facts in  this Rose case  are still murky...  Let  me ask you a question about something  a hypothetical  scenario:

 

A suspect is pulled over because his auto matches a car wanted in a shooting.  Someone gets out of the car and ignores the officers commands to get on the ground and he sprints away from the officer.  The officer shoots him in the back.  The suspect was unarmed, and deep down the officer did it out of panic or anger or whatever else, but not because he was facing an immediate and deadly threat. This officer did not wake  up planning to kill someone that day and I'd sure hope there is regret in his actions, let's say that's the case. 

Should there be any legal repercussions?  Should there even be any change in his job status?

@Johnny Rock, any feedback on this hypothetical situation? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is how the criminal justice system works. I don’t believe he should’ve been charged based on the law, but he was so it will play out. To me the DA is acquiescing to the protesters.

The attorney’s comments are so ridiculous. It must be looked at in a vacuum? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/25/2018 at 11:22 AM, Johnny Rock said:

I saw in an article that Antwon Rose Jr. had a 9mm clip in his pocket. 

Good thing the officer who shot him had his x-ray glasses on him so that he could see the clip in Rose’s pocket

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Yenrub said:

Good thing the officer who shot him had his x-ray glasses on him so that he could see the clip in Rose’s pocket

He was involved in an attempted murder. He possessed a stolen gun and he was under 18. The driver said the shooter asked him if that’s the guy, meaning he pointed out the intended victim. 

There was a threat to the public if he got away and the officer reacted. Unfortunately the guy died but he was an accessory. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Johnny Rock said:

He was involved in an attempted murder. He possessed a stolen gun and he was under 18. The driver said the shooter asked him if that’s the guy, meaning he pointed out the intended victim. 

There was a threat to the public if he got away and the officer reacted. Unfortunately the guy died but he was an accessory. 

How much of what you wrote did the officer know when he shot Rose?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Yenrub said:

How much of what you wrote did the officer know when he shot Rose?

He knew the vehicle’s occupants were involved in the drive by shooting. So the occupants had a gun or guns. Pretty intense I would think for all involved. The public was definitely at-risk. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poor good old citizen antwon. Driving around with people doing drive bys, carrying ammunition clips albeit empty, running from police. Give me a break.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.