The Public Opinion Soapbox

armed_citizen · Joined: 27 Oct 2007 Posts: 212 Location: Chambersburg, PA

postaff · Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Posts: 118 Location: Chambersburg

Go ahead and paste in the story.

.45chel · Joined: 26 Oct 2007 Posts: 2751 Location: Chambersburg

Took a very elementary business law class once at a community college.

I remember we had one particular discussion about a man leaving a building. He looks up and sees people screaming and running away from an armed man who appears to be shooting at them.
The bystander draws his personal weapon and kills the attacker.

Turns out, the 'attacker' was an actor in the midst of filming a scene.

The bystander was not legally liable because he acted on what he thought was an eminent threat and in the defense of others.

I have never had police training. I assume it was daylight because I saw so reference to conditions of visibility. I'm also going to guess that the officers did not know the suspect's age. Then again, if you think you're taking fire and your partner has just been shot it wouldn't matter how old the assailant was.

I believe peace officers should be held to a higher standard in their behavior, BUT I also believe that the average civilian has no idea of what an officer's job is like.

blah blah blah

Not Guilty.
_________________
I demand euphoria!

onewhoknows · Joined: 29 Oct 2007 Posts: 62

· Michael Ellerbe was running from two state troopers who had stopped him in a stolen SUV

· Nassan thought Ellerbe might be armed because he turned slightly back toward the troopers as he fled, as if he were preparing to fire a weapon.

· Ellerbe had just jumped a four-foot chain-link fence, with Curry close behind, when the trooper got his gun caught on the fence and it accidentally fired. Curry's pants also got caught, causing him to fall.

· Believing Curry had been shot, Nassan fired once, striking the boy in the back.

· Four separate investigations accepted the account offered by the troopers and found no wrongdoing on their part.

Law Enforcement officers have no idea what they are going to face from one moment to the next. They are normally well trained in many scenarios. Under extreme circumstances, an officer has to react and make crucial decisions within seconds. Nassan heard a shot – saw his partner fall.
There was a day when it was rare to think of a young person doing such horrendous things like we see in the news today. Sadly, it does not matter the age, gender or ethnic background of the individual when it comes to dealing with the bad element of society.
What would you have done under the same circumstances?

Not guilty.
_________________
onewhoknows
Common sense is not so common

wire1 · Joined: 27 Jan 2008 Posts: 11 Location: Shippensburg

No way would I find them guilty. I have been in situations that are very similiar and it is very scary. Your mind isn't thinking..........there's no time. It is simply relying on training. Everything seems like it's a dream and your reactions seem as though they are in slow motion. Your periphial vision is gone, and auditory exclusion is prominent.

I'm sure all that trooper processed was

1. gunshot heard
2. partner falls
3. stop threat

He did what he was trained to do. No one can say what they would have done because they don't know how the trooper was feeling. His perception of serious bodily injury or death was his to determine.

As far as the testimony, I wouldn't ponder too much on the "massive contradictions and implausibilities in the stories of the two police officers" and the stories not matching what the witnesses saw and heard. People see and hear different things. Especially when comparing that of witnesses and police. I know from experience that when I've been involved in an incident, there is differences in the reports of all involved.

Enough said.....not guilty.
_________________
That light at the end of the tunnel is just a freight train coming your way.

onewhoknows · Joined: 29 Oct 2007 Posts: 62

Should we open dialogue of parent’s responsibility?
_________________
onewhoknows
Common sense is not so common

.45chel · Joined: 26 Oct 2007 Posts: 2751 Location: Chambersburg

please no

at least, not yet.

edited to add smiley Very Happy

_________________
I demand euphoria!

Wile_E · Joined: 10 Jan 2008 Posts: 51

For all reasons previously posted: Not Guilty.
_________________
"You know the score pal. If you're not cop, you're little people!"

Dave · Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Posts: 162

These are supposed to be highly trained police officers.

To assume that the guy running shot his partner is not enough.

The stretch from hearing a gun shot, seeing someone fall to shot to kill is too much.

Guilty of something - manslaughter?

armed_citizen · Joined: 27 Oct 2007 Posts: 212 Location: Chambersburg, PA

Just to clarify: The shooting was already ruled as "justified" by a coroner's jury, so no criminal charges were brought. The current case is a civil one, and alleges "wrongful death". The burden of proof is typically lower for this type of case than it would be for a criminal charge (murder or manslaughter).

I expected to be on the minority side of the results here, but am slightly terrified that Dave and I agree. I think that might be a first. Here's my logic:

Supporting the officers' position
*Umm...I didn't actually come up with anything, but maybe will discover something as the discussion progresses.

Damaging to the officers' position
*Twelve-year-old Michael Ellerbe was running from two state troopers who had stopped him in a stolen SUV when he was shot in the back and killed.
Forget the age of the suspect. To me, that's not material to the case. The "suspect" was a car thief. Not a known, escaped murderer. Deadly force is not acceptable when used as a method to stop a fleeing suspect. Try shooting a burglar in the back, while he's still inside your house, walking away from you, towards the front door while carrying your plasma TV and see if you can avoid criminal charges like these officers did. There are very tight limits in PA on the use of deadly force in defense of yourself or others. The right to use deadly force to defend property does not exist in PA. Arguably, the police are more likely to encounter a scenario where deadly force may be necessary, and as such, they are (or should be) familiar with both legal and departmental limits on such action and act within those limits.

*"the trooper got his gun caught on the fence and it accidentally fired".
As someone who carries a firearm regularly and discusses numerous aspect of owning, handling and carrying them with others who do the same, it's widely held that there is no such thing as an "accidental discharge". The correct term is "negligent discharge". It would seem in order for this to happen, the officer had his firearm in his hand as he climbed over the fence. If it had been properly secured in the holster while going over the fence, the negligent discharge would not have occurred. To me, this is a major point, as it's alleged that this negligent shot is what caused the misunderstanding with the partner, which in turn caused the fatal shot to be fired.

*Nassan thought Ellerbe might be armed because he turned slightly back toward the troopers as he fled, as if he were preparing to fire a weapon. and The troopers were within two feet of Ellerbe when the chase began and could see he was unarmed, Hickenbottom's attorneys said in court filings. They also dispute a police claim that Ellerbe put his hands in his pocket, saying witnesses saw him pumping his arms as he ran.
I don't accept the argument that they should have known he was unarmed because they had been within two feet of him. Many firearms can be easily concealed and to assume someone is unarmed simply because you don't see a weapon is foolish. Being familiar with the "open carry" of a firearms, I often hear (and make) the argument that 'bad guys' don't engage in this practice for good reason...they want to keep the fact a secret. However, even though they clearly couldn't know definitively one way or the other if the boy was armed, looking over your shoulder while running from someone is common, and doesn't (shouldn't?) indicate you're armed and/or preparing to fire. I also think that witnesses seeing the boy pumping his arms while running is believable. It's almost 'instinct' and very difficult to avoid doing when running at full speed.

Verdict: Guilty of wrongful death
_________________
Author assumes full responsibility for the content of their posts. Opinions expressed on this website are not necessarily those of the Public Opinion, its editor, publisher, Board or affiliated parties.

wire1 · Joined: 27 Jan 2008 Posts: 11 Location: Shippensburg

Dave,

As usual, thanks for your inciteful Monday morning quarterback analysis. In your perfect world, I realize everything goes by the book and is black or white for you. But in real life, highly trained or not, the trooper only had time to make one decision instead of grabbing his manual and looking over his options. Don't know you, don't need to know you, but I can tell that you are not and have never been a police officer. If you were and were on the streets, that one day you would end up with a bullet in your or your partners body, because if you take the time to think, you're dead. That doesn't mean that you shoot first and ask questions later. Just because he made the wrong choice and made it very quickly does not mean it was negligent.
_________________
That light at the end of the tunnel is just a freight train coming your way.

onewhoknows · Joined: 29 Oct 2007 Posts: 62

Wire 1,
It's nice to see someone that knows what he is talking about. Thank you!
_________________
onewhoknows
Common sense is not so common

.45chel · Joined: 26 Oct 2007 Posts: 2751 Location: Chambersburg

Dave · Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Posts: 162

I am insulted by the idea that my name is mentioned with Dick Cheney unless in a sentence like : Dave waterbarded Dick Cheney so Dick could have his "little dunk in the water".

I really don't like the idea that people can be tried & found not guilty in a criminal trial and then found liable in the money trial. It doesn't seem fair.

As to the incident, police officers are supposed to be sure when they shoot & kill someone. Its not like the guy was getting ready to shoot him.

Bobo · Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Posts: 173 Location: Chambersburg

I'm with Dave on this one. To assume is not good enough. If it were you or your loved one, you wouldn't want someone to shoot based on assumptions. Well, I wouldn't.
_________________
The sun, the moon and the stars would have disappeared long ago... had they happened to be within the reach of predatory human hands. ~Havelock Ellis, The Dance of Life, 1923