Posted on 05/07/2008 6:09:50 AM PDT by PittsburghAfterDark
A Knoxville man shot and killed a Pittsburgh police dog Tuesday before the canine's handler returned fire, killing the man in what city police Chief Nate Harper called "an unfortunate" but justifiable action. The shooting outraged and angered the family of the 19-year-old man, Justin Jackson. He was pronounced dead by a passing paramedic almost immediately after the shooting that occurred at 6:53 p.m. in front of the UPMC facility on Arlington Avenue on the border of Knoxville and Mt. Oliver.
Harper said the dog's handler ordered the canine -- a 6-year-old German shepherd named Aulf -- to attack after Jackson pulled a gun from under his shirt. Both the officer, an eight-year-veteran Harper did not identify, and Jackson fired several shots, the chief said.
"They shot my son in the head. The officer told me, 'Our dog got shot so we shot him.' They killed my son over a dog," said Donald James Jackson of the West End.
"My 19-year-old son is lying there dead, shot in the head, execution-style. My son's brains are laying on the street. This is crazy. I'm going to do whatever I have to do, file charges against the officers, for my son. It's terrible, the mentality they have," Jackson said as he tried to comfort his wife.
"We are not going to let them get away with this!" Anna Jackson screamed. "They will pay for killing my son. They are going to pay for shooting my son over a dog!"
(Excerpt) Read more at pittsburghlive.com ...
Absolutely. But the law suits will still fly. Mama forgot to mention why her precious baby had a gun in the first place. He probably did not understand the police orders. The spoke them in ENGLISH
“Now, how is a police dog any different? “
_____________________________________________________________
It’s difficult to have a conversation on this topic if you are asking this question.
I’m going to drop out of this thread now.
Then we had guards admitting to such behavior.
Did some of those guys get jobs with Pittsburgh's police force? They'll hire just anybody these days ~ that city's on a death spiral.
You honestly think that Jackson had that gun registered and had a permit to carry? For real. You believe that?
From the article:
"I'm very disturbed by this whole thing. I don't believe it had to happen that way. The cops just began clearing the scene, telling everybody to get away. Nobody asked if there were any witnesses. My wife had to alert the cop and tell him, 'You're running the witnesses away.'
Whatever happened, the cops don't want disinterested witnesses in this case. A reasonable person would ask, "Why?"
Hope the family has an independent autopsy done, because the one done by the coroner is probably going to skew the facts in favor of the cop.
Not having a permit for a gun SHOULD NOT EVER be considered a capital crime. Don’t even think that way.
What was the “probable cause” for this attack?
Definitely a tough place to live eh.
I live in Pittsburgh too...and not attacking you...but I wouldn’t much credance in the ‘witnesses’ who are stepping up to the local TV microphones. I would like a pat down done on at least one ‘witness’ (non family member) in particular that I have seen. Out in the middle of the night, with gun fire being reported (that what drew the cops to investigate), with a friend packing a .357. Pure as the driven slush...
I am not saying they did not, in fact my original post stated as much. However, and this is a very big however.. to assume that any human being will sit and TAKE a dog attack just because a cop says so is insanity.
To further assume that because that person defended themselves from that attack and kills the dog, that he is threatening others is a stretch.
This one doesn’t pass the smell tests folks. I am not saying the cops are inately in the wrong, the investigation will be go on. But on the surface so far there are enough questions to make a rational person wonder.
No, they didn’t need probable cause. They only need an “articulable suspicion” for a stop and a pat-down. They may well have had enough for probable cause even for a more thorough search here, it is hard to say.
When responding to a shots fired call in the vicinity, they likely have an articulable suspicion to stop anyone they see in that vicinity. How exactly would you have the cops respond to a shots fired call at your house? If they pull up and see a suspicious person standing on the sidewalk, should they stop him and ask him what he is doing, or just tell you tough luck?
In this case, the officers believed he had a gun. It is hard to tell from how the article is phrased, but that might be because he had his hand in his shirt. Easy case for articulable suspicion - a good stop.
In any event, he did have a gun, and pulled it out. He chose poorly.
On most threads, I get labeled as a “Cop Hater” by those I call “Boot Lickers”.
But... in this particular case... the Cop was 10000000000000% justified.
You drawn down on a cop... human or otherwise... you put your life at risk.
BIH !
Never said I did.
IF it was or wasn’t does that change the situation?
I point a gun at your head, I tell you don’t move, I then sick a dog at you in full attack mode... you dare let your natural survival instincts kick in and defend yourself and I shoot you... You going to say you can guarantee you are going to just take the dogs teeth?
Sorry, I don’t buy it. This one smells, at least based on what has made it into the media so far.
What gave the police officers cause to believe he was carrying a gun?
I mean, c'mon, the police are responding to a "shots fired" report, they are cruising down the street at 35 or 40 miles an hour (conservatively), they see this guy walking down the street and say to each other, "That guy has a gun. We can't see the gun, we don't have anyone that says he's got a gun, but we know, he has a gun.", they come to a screeching halt and tell him to take his hands out of his pockets.
Something doesn't look right here.
Either they saw something that gave them pause or this is right out of Minority Report.
If he had complied with the police order to show his hands, he would be alive. Reasonable people know that. And THAT passes the smell test for me.
You still need probable cause to stop anyone. What is the probable cause? This article suspiciously omits that part ~
Absolutely it changes the situation. A registered gun, and a permit carrying owner means a law abiding citizen. An unregistered .357, stuffed into the waistband of baggy pants, by an unpermitted carrier seems a wee bit troublesome to me. Sorry, but I am like that.
The police story does not hang together at all.
Were the other 79 present and on the scene?
It amazes me. I have been stopped by police officers many times in my life, sometimes, quite rightfully so. In all those times, I was never shot, tased, beaten, or roughed up, and that includes back when I was a drunken and doped up idiot in the days when a billy club to the side of the head was a common practice. I have always been treated with respect in all those cases, and they span numerous different departments in numerous localities ( with one exception: I had a drunk fool of a cop put a gun to my forehead when I was 13 when I was doing nothing; there are bad pennies in every crowd, but that is no reason to condemn the whole lot.)
Now, we don’t know for a fact that Justin was innocent or guilty for the initial call. But, in all probablity, the responding officers were with in reason for checking Justin out. Justin’s subsequent actions tell me that the officer’s suspiscions were well founded...
YOu get a dog to raise his hand and take an oath first. Then we’ll talk.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.