The Same Old "Tragedy" Again

[DGS49]

East Pittsburgh residents demand answers in 17-year-old's death


Here we have the same repeated story that hits the news with some regularity:

Unarmed "Black" kid is fatally shot by police...justification unknown...the community is outraged...he was a "sweet" kid, never got into trouble...what a tragedy!

As a cynical old "White Person," even I have to ask the general question, When is it appropriate for police to use deadly force against someone who is running away from them?

But this question is never satisfactorily answered.

Now for my comments: Why did the kid run? He had nothing to do with the police stopping the car. It was probably a traffic violation, and the target of the police was the jitney driver, not the kid/passenger.

Why did he have a gun (actually, 2 guns)? Although it is common "knowledge" that police carry around spare untraceable guns to deposit at shooting scenes so they can claim that the perp was armed, it is impossible to make that claim here, since the driver is still alive, and in fact is not in custody. Those guns belonged to the "sweet" kid.

Good kids don't carry multiple unregistered handguns. Innocent people do not reflexively run from police. Many criminals lead exemplary lives when they are not actively perpetrating crimes, so the fact that an accused person "volunteers at the food bank" is not proof of anything with respect to any criminal activity.

And yet, I guarantee that none of the coverage of this incident will ask those two questions: why did he run, and why was he carrying TWO guns? If he ran because he had a fear that the police are out to get him, then he was badly misinformed. He was 100 times more likely to be shot by another Black Yoot than a policeman...until he fucked up.

It will be interesting to see what the police explanation turns out to be. The "community" reaction is foregone. Preachers being outraged, a Mother (seldom a father) crying over the grave, a neighborhood grandma saying that the community had to DO SOMETHING. We've seen it all before.

 

[TNHarley]

They pulled the car over because it was gray and had bullet holes in the glass.
The description given by neighbors who witnessed the drive by shooting.

 

[TheOldSchool]

The line between those who deserve it and those who don’t has become too blurred. Too many bad cops have gotten away with it over the years, often to cheers.

 

[DGS49]

By all means, the cops' actions should be thoroughly examined and if wrongful, they should be held accountable. Again, deadly force on someone who is running away? Unless it is an extremely dangerous felon, I don't see it.

Just want to see someone say, "This kid was starting down the wrong road; too bad he got shot, but it was partly his own fault."

But I won't hold my breath.

 

[martybegan]

By all means, the cops' actions should be thoroughly examined and if wrongful, they should be held accountable. Again, deadly force on someone who is running away? Unless it is an extremely dangerous felon, I don't see it.

Just want to see someone say, "This kid was starting down the wrong road; too bad he got shot, but it was partly his own fault."

But I won't hold my breath.

People like clean, clear cut blame when it comes to these things. They don't want to hear about cascade failures, or chains of events leading to something bad.

 

[IsaacNewton]

When exactly has it ever been ok to shoot someone in the back that is running away that doesn't have a gun in their hand?

Isn't that this!?




This shit has to stop, period.

 

[IM2]

By all means, the cops' actions should be thoroughly examined and if wrongful, they should be held accountable. Again, deadly force on someone who is running away? Unless it is an extremely dangerous felon, I don't see it.

Just want to see someone say, "This kid was starting down the wrong road; too bad he got shot, but it was partly his own fault."

But I won't hold my breath.

The only people who can really say that are the people who know him. And maybe we could say that as strangers had he got arrested, but he was unarmed and shot to death, so the officer made a decision to kill him and that's who is at fault.

 

[DGS49]

A few further facts come to light. The kid who got shot was not the only passenger in the jitney, a second kid took off and is still at large. The jitney driver has been interviewed and released... not involved with anything. Apparently there are still some eyewitnesses who are still not cooperating.

The deceased had an empty 9mm clip in his pocket. Reports are that he had gunshot residue on his hands, though this has not been corroborated - crime lab reports have not formally been released. Video exists of the prior drive-by shooting, and reports are that the deceased was the shooter...again, not corroborated yet. The DA is playing this very close to the vest.

Since this killing, there have been mass demonstrations each night in various venues, chosen to create as much disruption as possible. Outside a Pirate baseball game (on Fireworks night), a popular drinking locale (South Side), a heavily traveled highway (Parkway East). In all cases, the demonstrations have been illegal, relatively peaceful, and un-bothered by the police.

While this occurred outside the City of Pittsburgh and the Pittsburgh police had NOTHING to do with any of it, it appears that the demonstrators are relying on a weak, leftist, sympathetic mayor in Pittsburgh, who will tolerate this lawlessness rather than being seen as unsympathetic to Knee-Grows.

The boy's mother is nowhere to be seen in the demonstrations. Indeed none of the demonstrators have any apparent connection to the deceased. The boy's father is nowhere to be seen in the demonstrations, nor is any claimed relative (uncle, aunt, whatever). The "innocent Yoot" meme has been abandoned, in favor of "running away from the police does not warrant a death sentence."

However, what if the arresting/shooting officer had correctly concluded that the boys running away were the perpetrators of the drive-by shooting fifteen minutes earlier? What if he thought they were still armed and dangerous? He could not have known as he shot that the handguns presumably used in the prior shooting were left lying in the jitney.

Would that not make the shooting understandable, if not fully justified?

Apparently, the shooting officer has not been formally "interviewed" yet. Certainly, his lawyer will coach him intensely on this sort of presentation of the situation and his actions.

No justice, no peace. What is justice?

 

[IM2]

However, what if the arresting/shooting officer had correctly concluded that the boys running away were the perpetrators of the drive-by shooting fifteen minutes earlier? What if he thought they were still armed and dangerous? He could not have known as he shot that the handguns presumably used in the prior shooting were left lying in the jitney.

Would that not make the shooting understandable, if not fully justified?

No.

 

[Manonthestreet]

I would rather have drive by shooters shot than innocent people killed by drive by shooters. ..seems like no brainer

 

[harmonica]

The line between those who deserve it and those who don’t has become too blurred. Too many bad cops have gotten away with it over the years, often to cheers.

...I've already linked/proven/documented on USMB that there is NOT a major, chronic problem of police shooting unjustifiably
no, not too many compared to the number of police/calls for assistance/etc

 

[LOIE]

A few further facts come to light. The kid who got shot was not the only passenger in the jitney, a second kid took off and is still at large. The jitney driver has been interviewed and released... not involved with anything. Apparently there are still some eyewitnesses who are still not cooperating.

The deceased had an empty 9mm clip in his pocket. Reports are that he had gunshot residue on his hands, though this has not been corroborated - crime lab reports have not formally been released. Video exists of the prior drive-by shooting, and reports are that the deceased was the shooter...again, not corroborated yet. The DA is playing this very close to the vest.

Since this killing, there have been mass demonstrations each night in various venues, chosen to create as much disruption as possible. Outside a Pirate baseball game (on Fireworks night), a popular drinking locale (South Side), a heavily traveled highway (Parkway East). In all cases, the demonstrations have been illegal, relatively peaceful, and un-bothered by the police.

While this occurred outside the City of Pittsburgh and the Pittsburgh police had NOTHING to do with any of it, it appears that the demonstrators are relying on a weak, leftist, sympathetic mayor in Pittsburgh, who will tolerate this lawlessness rather than being seen as unsympathetic to Knee-Grows.

The boy's mother is nowhere to be seen in the demonstrations. Indeed none of the demonstrators have any apparent connection to the deceased. The boy's father is nowhere to be seen in the demonstrations, nor is any claimed relative (uncle, aunt, whatever). The "innocent Yoot" meme has been abandoned, in favor of "running away from the police does not warrant a death sentence."

However, what if the arresting/shooting officer had correctly concluded that the boys running away were the perpetrators of the drive-by shooting fifteen minutes earlier? What if he thought they were still armed and dangerous? He could not have known as he shot that the handguns presumably used in the prior shooting were left lying in the jitney.

Would that not make the shooting understandable, if not fully justified?

Apparently, the shooting officer has not been formally "interviewed" yet. Certainly, his lawyer will coach him intensely on this sort of presentation of the situation and his actions.

No justice, no peace. What is justice?

It is not the police officers job to be judge, jury and executioner. Justice is only gotten when the suspect is given a speedy and fair trial. He may or may not be found guilty, but without a trial, he's not given a chance. Our system says we are innocent until PROVEN guilty. Not that the officers believed him to be the guilty one based on information they had and therefore were justified in killing him.

 

[DGS49]

This story is still making waves in Pittsburgh, and "demonstrations" continue, albeit in less obnoxious venues.

The demonstrations are clearly intended to threaten public officials, police, and the potential jurors with violence or death if they should happen to conclude that this police officer acted reasonably under the circumstances. Unstated thus far is the dormant threat of Federal prosecution for "civil rights violations" if the local Feds are not satisfied with the severity of the sentence the Officer receives from the state court. Double jeopardy? What's that?

Also, it is nauseating how the local "Black Leaders" focus on this particular event and the threat to Black Yoots posed by the constabulary.........while at the same time, the crime pages are filled with shootings of other Black Yoots by...you guessed it...other Black Yoots.

As stated before, the number of Black Yoots WRONGFULLY killed by Cops each year is a small handful; the number of Black Yoots WRONGFULLY killed by other Black Yoots numbers in the thousands.

And they focus on this "problem" as though it were the scourge of the Black community.

Restating this case: There was a drive by shooting in the neighborhood. The police officer stopped a car having the same description as the one fleeing the drive-by (this WAS the car). Two Black Yoots were seen running away from the car, and the cop shot at them, killing one. Was it reasonable for the cop to conclude that these two felons were still armed and a danger to the community, having shot someone not 15 minutes earlier? Although the guns [GUNS, plural] were later found in the car, the Cop had no way of knowing they were not still armed as they ran away. The deceased had an ammunition clip in his pocket.

Is it conceivable that a jury could be conflicted by this evidence, with one or two of them, at least, considering that the use of lethal force could be justified?

 

[Taz]

By all means, the cops' actions should be thoroughly examined and if wrongful, they should be held accountable. Again, deadly force on someone who is running away? Unless it is an extremely dangerous felon, I don't see it.

Just want to see someone say, "This kid was starting down the wrong road; too bad he got shot, but it was partly his own fault."

But I won't hold my breath.

They should teach a law in grade school: run from the cops and get shot. Or just tell Al Sharpton and he'll tell all his friends.

 

[Marion Morrison]

By all means, the cops' actions should be thoroughly examined and if wrongful, they should be held accountable. Again, deadly force on someone who is running away? Unless it is an extremely dangerous felon, I don't see it.

Just want to see someone say, "This kid was starting down the wrong road; too bad he got shot, but it was partly his own fault."

But I won't hold my breath.

I'm thinking he was a decent kid that was starting down the wrong path with the wrong friends.

When did it become okay for cops to shoot people just because they're running away? That's what the "catch um" squad is for.

It consists of a plainclothes tall, skinny black man, and this little wiry dude. Do not underestimate them, they will get you. Even if you overestimate them, they're still gonna getcha. That's their job, they're the popo, baby. I doubt they've ever had to shoot anybody, even violent felons. They got me with psychology.

I was in my friend's place who has kids, hiding from the law, and he did his best for me, then they say "Well what if we just start busting your place up?" I'm not having that happen to my friend. So I'm like "Oh no, no, don't do that, here I am. All that ain't necessary." So they got me. No shots fired.