Lawyer Says Boy, 12, Was Shot by Trooper After Partner Accidentally Fired Gun (update)

AP via TBO.com ^ | AP-ES-12-28-02 1442EST | By Dan Nephin

[greydog]

UNIONTOWN, Pa. (AP) - A state trooper may have fatally shot a 12-year-old boy in the back after his partner fell while chasing the youth and the partner's gun accidentally fired, a lawyer for the boy's family said.

Attorney Joel Sansone refused to identify his sources for the account of the death of Michael Ellerbe, who was shot while running from police after a car chase Tuesday in Uniontown, about 40 miles southeast of Pittsburgh. "I wouldn't be saying it in public if I didn't think it was a good enough source," he said.

State police Capt. Roger Waters and Fayette County District Attorney Nancy Vernon both declined comment on the allegation Friday.

They have refused to provide any details about the shooting or how police believe it occurred, including whether either or both troopers fired their weapons.

Police have said that troopers Juan Curry and Samuel Nassan chased Ellerbe on foot after he ran from a stolen vehicle that crashed following a short pursuit.

Authorities say shots were fired during the foot chase and Ellerbe was struck by a bullet.

"Officers are often forced to make split-second judgments in circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving," Vernon said. They sometimes react differently if they believe a fellow officer may be wounded, she said.

State police refused to say whether they believed Ellerbe was armed or to discuss any circumstances leading up to the shooting, such as whether Ellerbe was alone in the vehicle.

On Friday, they would not even remark on state police policies regarding whether weapons should be drawn during a foot chase or whether Curry and Nassan had their guns out. The troopers were placed on administrative leave pending an investigation.

A coroner ruled that Ellerbe was killed by a single bullet to the heart and that he had been shot in the back about 2:30 p.m. Tuesday. The boy died later that day at a hospital.

Ellerbe's family hasn't decided whether to sue because "we don't know enough about why this chase was even occurring," Sansone said. "But I couldn't explain why, under these circumstances, an unarmed child is shot in the back. I can't give a good scenario in which it would occur."

Sansone said the family is concentrating on ensuring there is a complete investigation. "They need to bury their son and they need to find out why he is dead," he said.

[greydog]

Ellerbe's family hasn't decided whether to sue because "we don't know enough about why this chase was even occurring,"

Any bets here?

[The Obstinate Insomniac]

bump

[goose1]

Ya the low life lawyers are drooling already stealing a car and running from the cops isn`t enough reason for the chase to occure give me a break.He was in a stolen car and runnig from the cops dimwitt, stupid parents.

[EggsAckley]

Watch out....there's a thread still running with over 600 comments....all anti-cop, pro the "poor little boy." Fasten your seat belt.

[EggsAckley]

Sorry, just checked and it's only at 534 on this thread.

[TightSqueeze]

stealing a car and running from the cops isn`t enough reason to shoot anyone in the back. Trying to get away with shooting someone in the back after they committed any crime and you will be the one cooling your heals in the slammer pal. This cop should fry, end of story.

[Joe 6-pack]

"Watch out....there's a thread still running with over 600 comments....all anti-cop, pro the "poor little boy." Fasten your seat belt.

Well, if the kid really is a little, innocent saint, at least the parents can now have him cloned.

[EggsAckley]

heh heh heh

[babygene]

In Tennessee V. Garner (471 U.S. 1(1985)), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on use of deadly force to stop a fleeing felon.

It would appear that under this ruling, the shooting was not justified. Guess that's the end of the story...

[TightSqueeze]

U.S. Supreme Court ruled on use of deadly force to stop a fleeing felon.

My challenge stands, go ahead blow a hole through the back of some bad guy and see if any of the Supremes stand up for your sorry ass. Sentencing would not be the end of your story, it would probably include a chapter where you wax poetically of your three year stint being Bubba's bitch in the big house. Ouch!

[B4Ranch]

Ellerbe was killed by a single bullet to the heart and that he had been shot in the back about 2:30 p.m. Tuesday. The boy died later that day at a hospital. That's a strong heart or else a tiny bullet.

[coloradan]

Re: The Supremes, quoting from the post: "It would appear that under this ruling, the shooting was not justified."

[Eaker]

Trying to get away with shooting someone in the back after they committed any crime and you will be the one cooling your heals in the slammer pal. This cop should fry, end of story.

You might try reading a bit of the other thread before sticking your other foot in your mouth.

Stay safe; stay armed.

[BillyRubin]

Ellerbe's family hasn't decided whether to sue because "we don't know enough about why this chase was even occurring," Sansone said. "But I couldn't explain why, under these circumstances, an unarmed child is shot in the back. I can't give a good scenario in which it would occur."

The chase occured because he stole a car

[babygene]

Why don't you go back and re-read my post #9, dufey, the suppremes set up guideline that clearly do NOT support the police's action in this case...

[babygene]

The rules changed pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court's 1985 decision in Tennessee v. Garner. In that case, an unarmed 15-year-old had broken into an unoccupied house and taken a ring, a purse and some money, then was shot while trying to flee. Although Tennessee law immunized police across the board when they shot fleeing felons, the Court declared that the Constitution does not allow immunity to be handed out that broadly: not all felons pose enough of a threat to others to justify deadly force. They set guidelins as to when deadly force could be used.

[arthurus]

shooting someone in the back after they committed any crime and you will be the one cooling your heals in the slammer pal. This cop should fry, end of story.

I recall an incident at a Texas mall a few years ago.An estranged husband walked up to his wife in the mall and shot her in the head with a handgun, walked to his car, got in, and commenced to drive away.Another unrelated man witnessed the murder from inside a gunshop, picked up the rifle he was showing to the clerk, stepped outside and shot the departing husband in the BACK of the head. He was charged and acquitted. Was he wrong?

[Eaker]

Tennessee v. Garner

I live in Texas and understand the State laws.

I'll finally say it. If you break into my home I will kill you. Do the math, this is not hard to understand.

BREAK INTO MY HOME AND YOU WILL BE DEAD.

Stay safe; stay armed.

[babygene]

What the hell does breaking into your home have to with a fleeing felon?

P.S.

Now that you've gone public with your attitude, perhaps you should refrain from shotting anyone, even in your home in Texas...

[Eaker]

Now that you've gone public with your attitude, perhaps you should refrain from shotting (sic) anyone, even in your home in Texas...

My policy on intruders in my home in not a secret to ANYONE that knows me.

The fact that I have researched Texas law and understand it is why I correct non-Texans when they spout mythical laws that don't exist.

Do some research and then come back when you are done. People that discuss the law with no understanding are fools.

Stay safe; stay armed.