I know politics and the like aren’t acceptable, and that’s not my intent, but just wanted to extend a warning to my fellow posters.

I have several friends who are in Pittsburgh PD, and word is that the protests that have been happening around the city for the past few days may take a turn for the worst early this week.

There’s word going around that members of some of the more extreme activist groups are being bussed into the city with the intention of turning the protests violent. One friend I spoke to said that the Baltimore riots from Two years ago are being used as an example of the potential.

If you work downtown and have the option to work from home, I’d highly recommend it. If not, and you do have to go downtown, keep alert.

Damn. Nice heads up for those it could affect. What is this all about?

The Antwon Rose shooting a few days ago.

I don't get this country anymore. You have 2 morons doing a drive by shooting, get pulled over, run and one gets shot and killed. Another moron in Milwaukee walking up a street shooting a 9mm off in the air and into the ground. Cops come, he runs, gets tased, starts running again and then gets shot and killed. Why protest that there are 2 less morons in this world. It's not like one of them was standing around pointing a toy revolver that looked real at people and then wondering why he was shot and killed too.
Maybe don't run, shut the fuck up and do what the asshole cop tells you. That to me is the best option, rather then getting shot and killed. Just my 2 cents.

It defintely hurts the cause, or it causes a divide/animosity (which may be the point), when you choose such bad examples of racism/police brutality. Not to say police don't screw-up with actual criminals, just don't make actual criminals the posterboy for your cause.

There are more than a few examples of this with fine, upstanding citizens...yet somehow they don't attract the media attention and generate all the protests. It's an interesting dynamic, to say the least.

Didn’t even know.

In general I'm in agreement with you. Cops don't know if they'll complete their shifts and come back home and it's gotta be almost impossible for a sane person to do this job. The amount of stress and scrutiny they face is nuts.

But reading some details on the Rose shooting, how do you justify shooting someone in the back?

I have no idea about what happened so my comments are in a general sense...

When I was in law enforcement, you could not. The rules for use of force seems to have become much more lax or the judges are allowing a lot more. You could not shoot to stop someone from fleeing. Now, I think you could say you felt threatened to justify just about anything ( unless there are pictures and even then).

I don't believe this would apply to the Rose case, but speaking hypothetically - Would it be justified if the cop & suspect are exchanging gunfire, then the suspect turns and runs? Could the suspect be shooting at the cop while running away?

This cop fucked up. Plain and simple. It appears from the witnesses that he knew he fucked up immediately after he pulled the trigger. Sad for all those involved. I don't know the whole case. But apparently there was a gun in the car and the car was suspected in a drive by. Anyone know if in fact it was the right car? Still the wrong move by the cop, but if the kid was in the car that just did a drive by, It's a bit different than him getting gunned down buying crackerjacks at the corner store.

It was the correct car. They pulled the car over because it not only matched the make and model of the one described in the drive by, but it also had bullet holes in it.

So they knew it was the correct car and also knew the people in it were likely to be armed and willing to use those guns.

Does that information equate to a credible enough threat to open fire on someone running in the opposite direction? That's the million dollar question, here. And I believe that to be a question that no one who has never done that type of job before is even remotely qualified to answer.

My gut says he should have just let the kid go and not fired on him. But as I mentioned before, I have multiple friends in this line of work (including one friend on the SWAT team), and know enough from talking to them over the years that these things are never, ever as cut and dry as they seem. There's also a deeper strategy, always parameters I would never have thought of, etc.

I think folks sitting at their computers who have never been put in a life threatening situation should understand that they don't have even a fraction of the information necessary to make an informed opinion on such a topic.

(On related note, if you DO want to maybe learn a little more about what happens in these situations and get a more informed opinion on them, I highly highly highly highly recommend two books written by Dave Grossman. The first is called "On Killing", and the second is called "On Combat". They're both geared towards military and law enforcement and are meant as a deep-dive into exactly what happens in a life threatening situation. That includes both the psychology and the often-overlooked physiological effects of killing someone else and being in a situation where you could be killed. It's absolutely fascinating and these books have become great training sources for both military and law enforcement. If I had my way, they'd also be required reading for anyone who buys a gun.

To repeat, I'll never ever claim to know what a cop or soldier goes through in a gunfight....but these books have at least given me a peek behind the curtains a bit and I'm extremely glad that I've read them.)

I actually don't agree with that. Slippery slope, 'n'shit. But agree with most everything else.

Much of law enforcement today are former military men and women. They have been trained to meet force with overwhelming force in return, and still have the military protocols firmly engrained in their head. Instead of serve and protect, it's occupy and control. I think shoot first, ask questions later has become quite rampant. And no. Not all cops are like that.

I hate to say it, but getting shot dead is one of the hazards of the job. If you don't want to take the risk, don't become a cop. You don't have more rights than the average citizen. Just a bit more authority, and many abuse that authority. Cops can't be the only ones determining when it's ok to use deadly force.

I firmly believe protocols for life threatening situations should in fact have non law enforcement people factor into the forming of those protocols. Otherwise, we have a military state, where law enforcement makes up their own morality, justifying needless deaths. Which is kinda what some do already, claiming "I thought he had a gun" or "I felt threatened." Civilians should be involved in determining where that thin blue line is drawn. It's not a black and white issue, although many cops boil it down to that in order to justify their actions. Actions have consequences, so if you don't want to go to jail for killing innocents, don't fire on a fleeing child.

Having said that, I'm a bit surprised this cop is being prosecuted. A kid jumps out of a car involved in a drive by with weapons in the car. The other running kid was the shooter, who was later apprehended. What's to prevent this kid from hiding behind a building corner and returning fire? On the other hand, I don't condone shooting someone in the back. Even if they are a criminal. Besides, punishment should be commensurate with the crime. A drive by where nobody was injured doesn't merit the death penalty.

/shrug. My 2 cents.

Unfortunately, there's not reliable data to back up that opinion. We have no idea if unlawful use of force and unnecessary shootings have increased over the years. We still don't even have good data on that today.

My guess is the answer is OPPOSITE of what you have posited, that these incidents are on the decline because of 1) an increase in scrutiny and social media attention and 2) an overall decline in violent crime and shootings and 3) better training over the years as a result of various high profile incidents. That wouldn't be mutually exclusive to your point about former military becoming cops, but would deflect from what is most likely an overall positive trend.

Of course, when police shootings are very selectively promoted to national news and just hammered incessantly....then opinions and perceptions become manipulated and not necessarily aligned with reality.

After a car chase, the cop's blood is worked up. That is a known fact. Some areas will not let police give chase in high speed pursuits because they become unsafe. It is human nature to not want to let go. you will get angry that the person is running away.

SAying all that and living it are two different things. As I understand it, the cop was brand new. I expect he shot the boy to stop him from running. I also guess in court they will say the cop thought the boy had a firearm. He has to say that or it is a cut and dry case against the cop.

https://www.policeone.com/health-fitnes ... ncounters/

It's obvious why the lawful use of deadly force is pretty clearly defined.

But I imagine letting a guy go that you believe just shot and killed someone is tough. One could think someone else is going to die if you let that guy get away. Not the right attitude for a cop to have, but understandable perhaps.

I'm curious how many people run and actually get away. In a major metro, there are so many cops on scene so quickly that I'd expect there's almost no chance that guy gets away.

The cop wasn't new. He had worked for the University of Pgh when discharged because of mistreating a black student. He had done police work prior. I think 7 years. And no, not former military. That was just a off the cuff hypothesis.

As to your first statement, that's why countries (read USA, Israel) go to war unnecessarily. Putin is learning this as well. Now he has a frozen conflict in Ukraine, and the IDF are considered the best trained outside the US.

Reproducing combat is impossible. You can train, and conduct war games, but you can't emulate live fire. Having skirmishes now and again keeps your military sharp. I know people always strive for peacetime, but you can be goddamn sure there doesn't go 5-10 years without some kind of conflict. WW1, WW2, Korean war, and few years later Viet Nam. Then Grenada, Desert Storm, Afghanistan, Iraq, and scores of army bases throughout the world. I'm not saying that's the only reason those conflicts existed or exist, but If I were a military general. . . It took the US a couple of years to gear up for ww2 with training and the manufacture of arms and equipment. They had few experienced combat "boots on the ground." Not officers, regular army guys. Besides, technology changed a great deal between the two great wars. They haven't got caught with their pants down since. Just for shits and giggles -

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a190844.pdf

The tactical implications of combat inexperience. 1987.

Again, my 2 cents.

Just goes to show how uninformed you are. Or you've never been to North Braddock. They have exactly eight police officers. Count 'em, 8. They don't even have a training or policy manual. Ask swiss about Braddock.

And I just found out the statement released by the police department that he had an empty 9mm clip in his pocket was false; as an excuse. Not true.

LOL, well, I was speaking in a general/hypothetical sense with respect to cops giving up a chase. Obviously I'm not a pyschologist who was inside this specific cops head when I talked about why it might be tough to give up a chase.

I'm glad you found me to be uninformed, rather than insightful. It actually explains a lot about you and how you arrive at your opinions.


And, by the way, a second cop car has already pulled up right when the shots are fired, with more sirens heard nearby.

If you don’t want to get shot by a cop, don’t spend your evenings doing drive byes (also called attempted murder) and then flee once caught.

And here I thought this country was based on the presumption of innocence, not guilt.

For me it boils down to, Simply Cooperate with the Authorities and Don't run or resist and you'll live to see another day.

Since you mentioned me, Cor-Ten, I'll way in. Yeah, Braddock & North Braddock both have way diminished populations. Braddock lost its hospital, had no restaurants, had a dollar store, that was about it. Finally, a Swissvale guy opened up Peppers N'At in Braddock a couple years ago.

Anyway....one of the news headlines that I HATE is whenever someone is continually described as...."The Unarmed Black Man." In this case, the occupants of the car had executed a drive-by, kid was found with an empty clip in his pockets, and there were two guns in the car. Yeah, I guess the cop fucked up.....but that kid certainly wasn't doing what he should have been,

Yeah....go figure. To be fair, like 1 in 1M get shot dead for doing nothing wrong.

But it would be hard to argue the agenda in that. Which tells you everything.

Are you sure this isn't just an "incovenient truth" for you?

So you want a citizens task force to develop guidelines for deadly force? This is the same group of people who more than 50% can't be bothered to get their asses out to vote. And this is the same group of people who according to some were "brainwashed" into electing our current POTUS.

I'd love to see the idyllic society that you must live in that this somehow seems feasible to you.